"With their effort and one opportunity": Alleviating extreme poverty in Chile

Emanuela Galasso* Development Research Group, World Bank

March 2006

Abstract: This paper evaluates the effect of an anti-poverty program, Chile Solidario, during its first two years of operation. We exploit the exogenous geographic variation in the assignment of the program to estimate the impact of the program on a large array of socio-economic outcomes. Program impact is estimated under different empirical methods. We find that the program tends to improve education and health outcomes of the participating households, increases significantly their take-up of cash assistance programs and of social programs for housing and employment. There is no evidence that the participation to employment program translates into improved employment or income outcomes in the short term. Finally, we provide suggestive evidence of the key role that the psycho-social support had in enabling this change, by increasing awareness of social services in the community as well as households’ orientation towards the future.

* The work reported in this paper is part of the technical assistance of the World Bank’s Social Protection Sector Adjustment Loan in Chile. The work has been done in close collaboration with Evaluation Office in the Ministry of Planning (MIDEPLAN), Government of Chile, and in particular to Rodrigo Montero and Paula Baeza. Special thanks go to Martin Ravallion, who participated to the first identification mission in April 2003 and contributed to the design of the evaluation methodology, and to the Bank’s Manager for the project, Polly Jones, for her continuing support of the evaluation effort, and many useful discussions. The author also wishes to thank Verónica Silva and Patricia Hara from FOSIS, the program implementation agency for the Puente program, for insightful discussions on the design and the implementation of the program. Research assistance by Cesar Calvo and Enestor dos Santos Junior is gratefully acknowledged. These are the views of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Government of Chile or the World Bank. Correspondence: Emanuela Galasso, World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC, 20433 USA; e-mail address: egalasso@worldbank.org. Keywords: program evaluation, matching estimators, regression discontinuity design, extreme poverty, Chile. JEL classification: c14, c51, I31, I38, O15

2

“We cannot be content, when we know that 6% of the population lives in conditions of indigence. (..) We are going to go where they live. We want not only to provide subsidies, we want their children to study, to have health assistance, and we want to include them into social networks and into the society in its entirety. We are going to build a bridge between them and their rights, so that they can exercise them to defeat their conditions of extreme poverty”.

Ricardo Lagos, President of the Republic of Chile. Presidential address, May 2002.

1. Introduction

The latest World Development Report has brought poverty traps back to the central stage

of the development agenda. The dynamic processes through which different groups in society

experience persistently diverging income levels are complex. There is a general agreement that

household in extreme poverty are deprived along multiple dimensions, which reinforce each other to

jointly lock them into indigence. In Appadurai’s words (2004): “Poverty is many things, all of them

bad. It is material deprivation and desperation. It is lack of security and dignity. It is exposure to

risk and high costs for thin comforts. It is inequality materialized. (..) The challenge today is how

to bring the politics of dignity and the politics of poverty into a single framework.” Yet there are

very few examples of policy interventions that take this multi-dimensionality seriously, so as to

help the extreme poor to escape deprivation in a sustained way by simultaneously addressing

different structural constraints.

An important exception approach might come from a new program aimed at tackling

extreme poverty in Chile. The country has experienced years of sustained income growth during

the 1990s, with an average per capita GDP growth of 4.5 per cent between 1990 and 2002. As a

result, in the context of a stable income distribution (Ferreira, Litchfield 1999)1, economic growth

has translated into a reduction in the incidence of overall poverty in the country (from 33 per cent

to around 15 per cent), but without much changes in extreme poverty (stable at around 5.6 per

cent) over the same period (World Bank 2001)2. The benefits from growth did not trickle down to

the poorest segments of the population despite a large array of social services, targeted to the

poor3. The poorest segments are often unaware of their eligibility to certain programs or do not

know how to activate the process of accessing them. As a response, the government of Chile has

proactively introduced in 2002 a program, Chile Solidario, which aims reaching households in

1 Between 1987 and 1994, the shape of the income distribution has only slightly changed, with a small compression at the bottom and a small increase in the upper tail (Ferreira, Litchfield 1999, Litchfield (2001). 2 Poverty and indigence (extreme poverty) rates used in Chile are computed on the basis of an upper-bound and a lower-bound poverty lines used by MIDEPLAN. The poverty lines are derived from a standard food basket chosen as to provide a minimal recommended caloric intake, taking into account the demographic composition of the population. The monthly cost of such basket has been used to identify the ‘indigence’ line, used to identify those households and individuals whose income does not allow them to purchase this minimum diet. (Litchfield 2001). 3 As of 1998, the first five ventiles of household income were receiving 54% of all cash assistance programs, up from 40% at the beginning of the 1990s (MIDEPLAN 2002).

3

‘indigence’ in the country with an approach that goes beyond improving the targeting performance

of public programs or simply providing recipients with cash assistance. The innovative approach

involves a two-pronged strategy, working on both the demand as well as the supply side of public

services.

The first component of the program reaches households in extreme poverty (through a

proxy means testing) and provides them with a two year period of psycho-social support through a

local social worker. During this period, the social worker works with the household to assess their

needs and to help them devise a strategy to exit extreme poverty in the short run, by providing

direct cash transfers at a decreasing rate over time and by connecting households to various social

programs. After the two year intensive period, households are ensured a direct cash transfer and

preferential access to assistance programs for an additional period of three years. At the same time,

the program aims at helping households to progressively sustain their exit from extreme poverty in

the long run by improving their human capital assets, their housing and their income generation

capacity.

The second component works on the supply side, by ensuring coordination among different

programs. The rational comes from the recognition that an approach with isolated and sectoral

programs does not lend itself to face the multiple and interrelated material as well as psycho-

emotional deprivation of the extreme poor. The objective in the long term is to move away from an

approach based on single programs towards a “system” of social protection, where the supply side

provides bundles of programs that are tailored to meet the specific needs of households that are

hard to reach.

The program scaled up and expanded a pilot program called Puente, previously operating

in 4 provinces. The program was phased in four waves, from 2002 to 2005 to cover a target

population of 225,000 households, the estimated number of households in indigence in the country.

This paper provides the first quantitative assessment of the impact of Chile Solidario on

various socio-economic outcomes, on the basis of a large non-experimental dataset.

Such a complex and comprehensive intervention poses important challenges in terms of

assessing its impact. The comprehensiveness of the intervention implies that there is a large array

of final and intermediate outcomes that might be affected by the program. The estimated effect on

final outcomes will capture the joint impact of the offer of the psycho-social component together

with the effect of the take-up of a bundle of programs that the participating households receive as

a result of the program. Moreover, since the bundle of programs is tailored to the specific needs of

participating households, the average effects may mask large variations depending on initial

conditions. In order to provide a comprehensive picture of the program effects, it is therefore

4

important to describe how the estimated impacts are complementary among different welfare

dimensions, as well as explore the heterogeneity of the results for different socio-economic groups.

As it is often the case with ex-post evaluations, the questions that can be addressed

quantitatively are necessarily a subset of the potential channels of impact. First, family dynamics

(one welfare dimension that is the object of the joint work with the social worker) does not lend

itself to be measured with hard data. Second, the importance of the psychological component can

be captured only marginally in a quantitative setting, although by looking at subjective questions

on well-being and perceptions about the future, we can nonetheless provide a stylized set of results

that can complement the evidence from qualitative work. Finally, with limited information on the

characteristics of the supply side, we cannot infer much of the changes in the process of delivering

services at the local level, nor measure how the quality of the services provided. To this end,

process evaluation and more qualitative work need to complement the current analysis to provide a

comprehensive picture of the program effects.

The data used in this paper for the purpose of the evaluation uses a subset of participating

households and matched non-participants interviewed in the nationwide socio-economic survey

(CASEN) in 2003 and followed up longitudinally in 2004. The results of the evaluation cover only

the short term impact for the first three waves of the beneficiaries as of 2004, the majority of whom

are still part of the two-year phase of psycho-social support by the social worker.

The scope for identification comes from the design features of the program. The program

assignment is based on a proxy-means score (CAS), related to unsatisfied basic needs. In the

empirical analysis, we will exploit the exogenous geographic variation in the distribution of the

CAS score, as well as in eligibility to estimate the effect of the program on a wide array of

outcomes.

The results from the first two years of intervention of the program show gains along

different dimensions of education (preschool enrolment, enrollment into school for 6-15, adult

literacy) and health (enrolment in the public health system, as well as preventive health visits for

children under 6 and women). The results show also a strong take-up of employment programs,

though this participation is not (yet) translated into employment effects. There are no significant

effects on household income per capita, though participating households are significantly more

likely to be receiving social assistance transfers. There is also evidence that on average Chile

Solidario participants have increased their awareness of social services in the community and are

more likely to be more optimistic about their future socio-economic situation.

The structure of the paper is follows. We start in section 2 with a detailed description of

the Chile Solidario program and its assignment mechanism. Section 3 presents the methodology we

apply, and discuss the identification assumptions. Section 4 describes the data and section 5

5

presents the results. Section 6 will explore the extent to which the program effects are correlated

with each other and with some key socio-economic characteristics of the participating households.

Concluding comments will be provided in section 7.

2. Background on the program

The Chile Solidario program presents two main axes of intervention, centered around the demand

and on the supply side of public services.

The first component of the intervention involves “working directly with the households”.

In order to do so, participating households undergo a period of psycho-social support during which

they are visited regularly by a social worker, at a decreasing rate over a two year period.4 The two-

year time limit is set in advance to avoid that the households become dependent of the social

worker and of their assistance. The psycho-social support has been recognized by law as an integral

component of the intervention5 and represents the key distinctive feature of this approach. There is

a rich and insightful body of qualitative evidence6 highlighting the importance of this psychological

component in restoring confidence and self-concept/image of the participating households,

extending their orientation towards the future, as well as reconnecting them to the network of

public services.

The multidimensional aspect of deprivation is operationalized in terms of defining a set of

minimal critical conditions, which aim at measuring a minimally acceptable level of well-being

along different dimensions (identification/legal documentation, family dynamics, education, health,

housing, employment, income). These intermediate objectives are not seen as final outcomes per se,

but as important pre-conditions to achieve a ‘decent’ standard of living and instrumental to escape

extreme poverty in the long term. The families then commit to put their effort in meeting those

unmet priority conditions, by signing ‘partial contracts’ with the social worker.

The program includes also a small cash transfer (‘bono de protección’), which is transferred

to participating households after having signed their partial contracts. The ‘bono’’s value is tapered

over time, with the idea that households should progressively improve their standards of living as a

4 The social workers are either professionals hired by FOSIS, the social fund in charge of the implementation, or local municipal employee (specialized in the area of education or health, social services in general) who allocate a part of their time to the program (FOSIS, 2004a). Their selection is done by public ‘concursos’, according to clear eligibility criteria, in conjunction with the local municipalities. Starting in 2005, the work of social workers is also monitored each year through a self-reported beneficiary assessment of a representative sample of families. The social workers and all key actors of the program are linked to each other through various modalities of individual and collective learning, such as discussions (‘circle practice analysis’) as well as training and courses in social work. 5 Ley Chile Solidario http://www.chilesolidario.gov.cl/admin/documentos/admin/descargas/ley_chs.pdf 6 See for instance the study on the psychosocial effect of the program on women (U. Chile 2004b) as well as the study on needs and aspirations of families that just exited the two-year period of psycho-social support (Asesorias para el Desarrollo, 2005).

6

result of the program.7 The value of the bono is independent of family size or composition. As in

many of the conditional cash transfers popular in the rest of the Latin American region, the direct

cash transfer represents the large share of the cost of the intervention8. The short-term income

support in the case of Chile Solidario besides the ‘bono’ takes the form of accessing existing cash

assistance program to which participating households were already eligible to. Contrary to the

approach of many conditional cash transfer, however, the emphasis here is shifted from the transfer

itself towards bridging the demand and the supply side of social services.9 The transfer is not

conditional on any behavioral requirement on school enrolment or health visits, though it is

terminated if households interrupt their participation to the program. The drop-out rate is

estimated to be very low, around 3 per cent of all the households invited to participate. The

conditionality relates to the partial contracts that households signed during the intensive phase:

households are expected to show efforts in working on those conditions that are recognized by the

family itself as structural bottlenecks and to which they have committed to. After the two years of

psycho-social support, households receive an unconditional exit bonus (‘bono de egreso’) for

additional three years, of an amount comparable to the last transfer of the ‘bono de proteccion’.

Ensuring access to public services and programs is instrumental to improve standards of

livings of participating households. In their conceptualization, Puente and Chile Solidario

recognized that many of households in indigence were unable to formulate and activate their

demand for social services. The barriers to take-up of social programs are well documented in the

US labor literature (Currie 2004), which highlights a combination of high transaction costs

associated with the application process, lack of information about eligibility and program rules, and

stigma. The same barriers in terms of transaction and psychological costs (lack of information,

feeling of helplessness and discrimination) are compounded in the households facing deprivations in

many dimensions. During the phase of psycho-social support, and three additional years thereafter,

participating households are ensured ‘preferential access’ to a set of public transfers and services.

7 The direct transfer is set at Ch$10,500 per month for the first six months of the Puente program; decreases to Ch$8,000 in the second six months of the program. In the second year it decreases to Ch$5,500 and finally to Ch$3,500 for the last six months, an amount equivalent to the family allowance (SUF), one of the main cash assistance transfers. 8 The direct cost per family to access the Chile Solidario System (via the Puente Program) is estimated to be around US$ 330, of which US$ 275 (about 80%) correspond to the transfer itself. The social worker accounts for about 10% of the direct cost. It is estimated that the total program spending in 2003 accounted for 0.3% of social protection spending, or 0.08% of GDP (Lindert, Skoufias, Shapiro, 2005). 9 The median transfer amounts to 2% of the total income of the participating households. In our 2003 sample, the median share increases to about a 6-7%, when restricting the analysis only to those participating households receiving the transfer. This compares to about 25% in conditional cash transfers program in Nicaragua and Honduras (Rawlings, Rubio 2005), and to 22% for Progresa families in Mexico (de Janvry, Sadoulet 2005). In terms of PPP-adjusted US$, the average transfer per month per family amounts to 22.1$, compared to 82.9$ in the case of Progresa (Mexico) and 85.5$ in Nicaragua (combined education and health/nutrition, source: World Bank 2003).

7

The social worker conveys information and elicits this unexpressed demand for those public

programs that meet their needs.

At the same time the social worker assists the households in realizing what their needs and

priorities are helps them devise a strategy (their ‘life-time project’), by developing a set of

endowments (assets, skills, abilities, information, autonomy and self-efficacy) that allow them to

autonomously sustain their exit from extreme poverty in the long-run.

The second component of the intervention focuses on reorganizing the supply side of public

services. Public programs and services were previously available for their respective eligible

population upon demand. Chile Solidario works directly with the municipalities, which are the local

providers of public services, by making sure that the supply side is locally organized to attend the

needs of this specific target population and ‘bridge’ the demand gap.

Meeting several minimal conditions for the same household may require that different

actors in the municipality coordinate their interventions, and institute new practices that are

receptive to the demands and the needs of target population. The concept of ‘preferential access’ to

public services for the families of Chile Solidario means making this specific group “visible” to

public services.

The existence of different dimensions of deprivation, and their complementarities, implies

that different households will have to simultaneously tackle different interrelated minimum

conditions (‘soluciones integrales’). Just to give an example, meeting the condition “at least one of

the household members has a regular job and a stable source of income” for a given household

might imply having a female head of the household to work (FOSIS, 2005a). This will depend not

only on the existence of job opportunities, but also on the fact the individual is registered at the

local unemployment office. She might need to upgrade her skills to increase their likelihood of

finding employment, ensure that her children are taken care of while she is working, etc. Attaining

all these objectives will require coordination with different institutional actors involved in the

provision of services in the municipality (such as providers of training or adult literacy programs,

the local unemployment office, the public pre-schools). This process is facilitated by the fact that

the activities of the social workers are institutionally grounded in each municipality (UIF, Unidad

de Intervención Familiar). Their work and performance is supervised and coordinated by a

municipal employee (head of the UIF).

During the first three years of implementation of the program, the role of these UIFs has

been critical in ensuring the necessary change in practices and the coordination within the existing

institutional supply. Over time, the capacity of such units to provide solutions to meet the needs of

the participating households should improve: some of these local units are creating new programs

where the existing supply was not sufficient or not existent. These structural transformations of the

8

supply side are unlikely to have occurred in the timeline of the current analysis and might

complicate inference in the future. We will discuss the implications of such changes for the results

of the evaluation in Section 6.

3. Methodology

3.1 The assignment mechanism

As in other examples of social programs and conditional cash transfers programs in

developing countries, the program is assigned on the basis of a proxy-means score calculated on the

basis of a card (CAS ficha).10 The assignment mechanism to the program works as follows:

• All households whose scores are below a predetermined threshold are considered eligible to

participate.

• The program was allocated geographically to all areas proportionally to the target

population. i.e. households below a predetermined CAS threshold (see fig. 1)

• The thresholds (or CAS cut-offs) are not the same nationally. In order to ensure a wide

geographical coverage of the program, a decision was made to allow thresholds to vary

across communes and regions, with the aim of reflecting differences in the poverty rates

across different geographic areas.

• Households within municipalities are sequentially invited to participate to the program, by

starting from the bottom up of their CAS distribution.11

These design features are such that two potentially eligible and observationally equivalent

households can potentially have been differentially exposed to the program.

Let the participation to the program be denoted by iD , a binary indicator for family i. For

each household, there are two potential outcomes. The outcome )1(iY if the household participated

in the program, and )0(iY , the outcome that would realize in the absence of the program. The

impact of the program is defined as the difference between outcomes with the program and in the

absence of the program. Since households can either participate or not participate, only one of

these potential outcomes can be observed ex-post, while the other needs to be estimated. We apply

two different estimation methods to estimate such counterfactual.

10 The score is a summary index of unsatisfied basic needs that is used as pre-requisite for participation to Chile Solidario and a wide-array of other social programs in Chile, from income transfers (e.g. family allowance SUF, old age public pension PASIS) as well as subsidies to health utilization(FONASA), water subsidies SAP, access to public housing and childcare centers. 11 Even though in principle households could refuse the invitation to participate, in practice, the proportion of households who refused to is too small to meaningfully model the selection process.

9

3.2. Matching on the CAS score

The source of exogenous variation comes from the fact that the range of support and the

distribution of the CAS, and the cut-off points vary across municipalities and regions (see figure 2).

Two households with similar levels of the scores, but living in different areas have different

probabilities of participation for two reasons. First, because of the different range and distribution

of the CAS score across communes, two equally eligible households with the same score might be

located in different parts of the distribution within their respective communes. Second, because of

the different thresholds across communes, households with the same score face different

probabilities of being below the thresholds in different locations.

We will explore the first source of exogenous variation by applying the method of matching

to estimate the counterfactual of no-program outcomes and estimate the impact of the program.

This method estimates the counterfactual of no-program outcomes by matching on the observable

characteristics used in practice during the assignment mechanism, i.e. the CAS score. This means

identifying households that resemble as ‘closely’ as possible the participating households, where the

closeness depends on the matching metric.

Let the CAS score be denoted by, )( iXS , which is an index function of (a subset of)

covariates iX .

Households are assigned to participate in strict ordering depending on their score.

Moreover, given that households are invited to participate, they are assumed not to self-select into

the program based on the expected gains. In this setting, participation (‘treatment’ in the

evaluation literature), is assumed to be independent of the outcomes of interest, conditional on the

score, i.e. iD ┴ )(|)1(),0( iii XSYY . In other words, conditioning on the score is assumed to eliminate

all the selection bias (ex-ante unobserved heterogeneity).

Second, there is a concern of being able to construct a valid comparison group among the

non-participants, if the program successfully reached the target population of indigents in the

country (with universal coverage of the poorest segment of the population in the entire country).

The fact that the households were ranked within municipalities makes it possible to achieve a

sufficient ‘overlap’, common support in the distribution of the CAS scores, in that there exists

intervals of the score for which we can observe both participants and non-participants at the same

time.

Under both assumptions, we can identify the gains from the program for participating

households with the following parameter:

]),(,1|)0()1([)( xXxSDYYExT ==−=τ (1)

10

We follow Abadie and Imbens (2006) to estimate the effect of the program on participants

(1), by matching on the CAS score. We also estimate the effect by matching on the CAS score and

adjusting the difference within the matches in their covariates. 12

First, estimate the potential outcome for non-participants by:

0))(ˆ)(ˆ(1

)0(ˆ00 =−+= ∑

∈i

Jllil

ii DifXXY

JY

i

µµ

where iJ is the number of households matched to household i, xx 000ˆˆ)(ˆ βαµ += is the

regression imputation estimated for non-participants in the matched sample, and x includes a set of

(pre-determined) household characteristics. We perform separate estimations for rural and urban

areas: the incidence of poverty13, the infrastructure, the supply side of public services and the labor

markets faced by households living in rural and urban areas are very different.

Note that this identification strategy compares participating and non-participating

households with similar scores (and household characteristics) across regions. One potential concern

is that it assumes that the effect of the treatment does not vary across regions and/or

municipalities, which might be a strong assumption in the context of the program, which gives

such an important role to municipalities. Different municipalities might face a different supply of

social services. While the premise of the intervention lies on the existence of an excess supply of

social services, there is a possibility that for some of the specific dimensions (and among them most

likely housing) there might be have been some rationing of the supply side. We address these

concerns by presenting the results with an additional specification where we allow for community

effects, in addition to household characteristics. This will control for any time-invariant differences

in the initial conditions of the supply side, as well as for unobserved characteristics of the local

labor market.14

Then the estimator corresponding to (1) is given by:

∑=

−=11

)]0(ˆ[1

)(ˆiD

iiT YY

Nxτ

12 The bias-correction introduced by Abadie and Imbens (2006) removes the conditional bias that arises when matching is performed on more than two variables are used. In our framework, only one matching variable is used (i.e. the CAS score). We use their approach to estimate the conditional treatment effect on the treated. 13 The incidence of rural poverty was found to be double the incidence of urban poverty in 1987, although the differences across urban and rural areas have converged over time, especially for the incidence of extreme poverty (Litchfield 2001). 14 The underlying assumption behind this specification is that the supply side is given at any given point in time. The assumption seems relevant in the first two years of operation of the program. Over time, to the extent that the supply side responds differentially depending on the local unsatisfied demand, this approach will need to be modified to ensure identification.

11

i.e. the difference in these (conditional) outcomes between participating and matched non-

participating households in a neighborhood of their CAS score. Intuitively, this approach means

purging household and/or community characteristics using a regression approach (or linear

covariate adjustment), but avoiding to impose any functional form on the treatment effect, by

modeling it non-parametrically.

3.2. Regression discontinuity approach

The second source of exogenous variation comes from the application of thresholds for

eligibility. The choice of the cut-offs is across regions was exogenous, and based the estimated

poverty incidence estimated from the nation-wide household survey in 2000. Households just below

and just above the threshold will have a different probability of participation. In principle, under

the identifying assumptions of selection on the score, there should not be omitted factors correlated

with participation. We apply this second method to check robustness of the results.

We follow van der Klaaw (2002) and Chay, McEwan, and Urquiola (2005), and apply a

parametric regression-discontinuity design to estimate the impact of the program around the

thresholds. Figure 4 shows that there are sharp changes in the probability of participation close to

the threshold. The effect of the program is estimated by comparing a large set of outcomes for

households just above and below the cutoffs, within increasingly narrow bands around the cut-offs

for eligibility.

Note that the estimated gains using this approach apply only to households close to the

cutoff. Given that all municipalities started from the bottom-up of their CAS distribution, the bulk

of the distribution of participants is concentrated to the left of the graph, away from the cut-offs

(see fig. 3a and 3b). To the extent that there is heterogeneity in impact along the socio-economic

characteristics (as proxied by the CAS score, with households with relatively higher scores having

larger/smaller impacts), the estimated gains using the RD approach will be interpreted as ‘local’,

i.e. applying only in the neighborhood of those thresholds.

4. Data

The analysis is taken from the nationally representative household survey —the

Caracterización Socioeconómica Nacional — CASEN — the main source of information on household

welfare in Chile. The survey is multi-topic, ranging from questions on demographics, employment,

income, education, health status and utilization of services to access to public subsidies and

transfers. MIDEPLAN, the ministry in charge of the survey as well as of the program, planned to

add a few questions on program participation to the CASEN administered in 2003. The sample size

12

has been augmented to over-sample Chile Solidario beneficiaries. About 5,000 beneficiary

households from the 2002 and 2003 cohorts were interviewed (out of a total of 71,000 households).

Given the large sample size of the CASEN 2003 survey (about 73,000 households) and the

scale of the program, some of the households located in the CASEN 2003 became subsequently

program participants (2004 and 2005 cohorts). Their identity has been subsequently identified in

the list of households interviewed in November 2003, by cross-checking names and addresses from

the CASEN 2003 data with those from the administrative list of participants. Thus all four cohorts

of the program participants could and were identified in the CASEN 2003.

What are the characteristics of the participants and non-participants households? In tables

1 we report weighted means for demographic, socio-economic characteristics, household income and

intermediate indicators used in the analysis. The characteristics are presented separately by

participation status, as reported in the CASEN 2003 (table 1a). The descriptive statistics confirm

that program has indeed been well targeted. Participants households come from larger households,

where both the head and the spouse have lower educational attainments (about 2/3 have not

completed primary education), have lower labor force attachment, and lower assets (durables).

They are also more likely to come from rural areas, and from ethnic minorities. Participants are

twice more likely than non-participants to have at least one member with disabilities. The direct

cash transfer is preferably given to a female in the household (close to 90% of them), whether head

or spouse, echoing the design features of conditional cash transfers in other Latin American

countries.

In order to allow for the possibility of following up the impact of the program over time,

while keeping low the survey cost, MIDEPLAN agreed to nterviewed only a subset of participants

together their ‘matched’ comparison one year apart (November 2004). A third round of the

longitudinal survey, initially planned for November 2005, is scheduled for 2006, to eventually form

a three-year longitudinal panel.

The planned sample for the follow-up survey in 2004 was to re-interview a representative

sample of participants together with the sample of matched only those households with similar

propensity scores of participation. (Details on how the panel was constructed are available in the

Appendix. The structure of the panel is summarized in fig. A1 in the Appendix). For practical

reasons, however, the selection of the matched group of non-participants was forced to be done

within the same regions and zones (rural/urban). This sampling strategy caused the characteristics

of sample of non-participants in the panel to deviate from the participants’ sample. As one can see

from the descriptive statistics in tables 1a-1b, the final sample of non-participants improves relative

to the entire population of non-participants surveyed in 2003. However, it is evident that the

selected sample of non-participants is still composed of households that are better off along various

13

dimensions of economic well-being (for instance, income, education levels, assets and housing

conditions).

The 2004 questionnaire has newly added questions on participation to various social

programs. It has also new modules on intergenerational mobility (with questions on the education

and background of the parents), subjective welfare, as well as a short module on perceptions

(problem solving, perceived social support and expectations about the future). The descriptive

statistics, by participation status, on the intergenerational and the perception questions are

suggestive. These underlying differences in the socio-economic conditions of participants and non-

participants are also reflected in their subjective measures of well-being. More than 2/3 of the

participants consider themselves to belong to the lower ladder of socio-economic well-being (along a

5-ladder scale: low, medium-low, medium, medium-high, high), compared to 1/2 of the non-

participants. It is also interesting to note that the spouses of the head have more positive

perceptions of well-being, independently of participation status.

Finally, our identification strategy requires that we observe the actual CAS (proxy means)

score used to select households into the program. The score could be retrieved in the 2003 only for

participating households, for which the identity numbers were collected to be merged with project

data. One key innovation of the 2004 survey to overcome this problem was to collect information

on the identity numbers of all household members, allowing us to match individuals with

administrative data with their actual CAS score for both participants as well as non-participants15.

As a consequence, we will make use of the 2003-2004 panel sample for the rest of the analysis. We

were successful in finding corresponding matches for about 2/3 of the sample: about 90% of those

households in the participants’ sample, and about 60% among the non-participants. As shown in

figure 3a, the distribution of CAS scores for participation is strictly to the left of that of non-

participants. Participants are much more likely to be eligible (having their CAS below the relevant

threshold). These persistent differences in socio-economic characteristics due to the deviation of the

panel sample from the planned one imply that we cannot simply compare outcomes between

participants and non-participants in the panel sample. Next section will provide the results

obtained by applying the empirical methods outlined in section 3.

15 The CAS data for participants is their CAS score at the entry of the program, as recorded in the administrative data of the program Puente. The CAS score for non-participants could be obtained by using the identity numbers (RUT) to find their CAS score from the entire CAS database at the national level (consolidado CAS). For non-participants, the CAS from the December 2003 database was used (and only if the score was missing, later scores measured in June 2004 and December 2004 were used for the imputation).

14

5. Results

Table 2 describes how the program was allocated across different geographic areas. The

results confirm that the program was assigned to communes in proportion to the target population

of eligible families. Population and CAS thresholds explain around 70% of the variance in the

geographic allocation of the program to communes.

5.1: Income and employment effects

Results on the income and employment dimension are reported in table 3, using the

estimated program effects on the CAS score, separately by urban and rural and by year. For each

outcome of interest, outcomes are based on matching on the CAS score, unconditionally,

conditionally on a large set of household characteristics (family composition, age, sex marital status

and education of the head of the household, presence/age of the spouse, indicators for ethnic

minority and indicators of basic asset ownership), and finally conditioning on both household

characteristics as well as on municipality fixed effects.

Income effects: The short impact of the program on total income and labor income is

overall small and mainly non significant across alternative specifications. Participating households

are on average more likely to be receiving some public transfers, with a relatively stronger effect in

urban areas. Participating households have a ‘preferential access’ to public transfers such as the

family allowance (SUF, Subsidio Unico Familiar), the old age and disability pension (PASIS) and

the potable water subsidy (SAP). These are generally well targeted social assistance transfers

(Clert, Wodon 2001, MIDEPLAN 2002, 2004, Lindert et al. 2005), though their targeting

performance with respect to households in extreme poverty was limited by the inability to elicit

their demand/take-up. The results in table 3 suggest that households in Chile Solidario are more

likely to have received the SUF, especially in urban areas, but less likely to be receiving the water

subsidy, the old-age pension and another form of family allowance (in urban areas). The negative

sign cannot be interpreted as a negative impact. These programs are assigned strictly on the basis

of the within commune ranking of the CAS score among the applicant households. The fact that

we observe negative effects might simply reflect the fact that participating households lagged

behind in activating their demand even before the program (which is not controlled for by the

observed covariates), and that Chile Solidario did not help bridge such differences in take-up for

such programs.

On the opposite extreme, some of the positive impact, when observed, (for example in the

case of the SUF) might be coming from a negative externality to non-participating households.

Once Chile Solidario participants activate their demand, the social transfers are assigned in strict

order of the CAS within municipalities. Should the municipal supply of such programs not be

sufficient to meet the new total demand, then the estimated effect will overestimate the true effect

15

of the program (i.e. it would be a composite effect of a positive impact on participants and a

substitution effect away from current recipients (‘focalización intra-pobreza’)). An indirect way of

testing for this is to compare the conditional results controlling for household characteristics, to

those that include both household controls and municipality fixed effects. The latter results allow

for local re-ranking of households, as well as control for possible rationing on the local supply. The

results do not change substantially when controlling for community effects, though we have

indirect sign in urban areas that the estimated effect is slightly higher. Again, this lends weak

indirect evidence of the substitution/displacement hypothesis.16

Labor Supply effects: Chile Solidario households exhibit very strong take-up of labor market

programs: they are more likely to be participating to programs aimed at supporting self-employed

and more likely to be participating to public employment/labor re-insertion and training programs.

Participation rates increase by around 30 percentage points in urban areas, and about 14

percentage points in rural areas for self-employment programs. The same pattern is observed for

public employment program (increased by about 6% points in urban areas, and 4% points in rural

areas), while the effect on take-up training programs is significant only in urban areas. There is

also a very strong effect in increasing the likelihood of household members to be enrolled in the

local employment office (OMIL), one of the minimum conditions previewed by the Chile Solidario

program for unemployed members. Being enrolled in such offices not only should facilitate the

process of looking for a job, but also represents a pre-condition for eligibility to various public

training programs.

While the program activated a significant take-up on programs that might increase the

employment prospects for the participating households in the medium term, the results do not

translate into current gains in their labor supply. There is no sign of improvements of the share of

members who are employed, nor on the share of members who have a stable employment (self-

reported). The only positive and significant effects on labor force participation are observed in

rural areas, with gains in the share of members who are active.

On the one hand, the inconclusive evidence leaves pending important questions on the

ability of the program in helping households achieve a sustained exit from extreme poverty.

Qualitative work17 clearly suggests that improvements in employment (especially those related to

having a stable source of income in the household) and housing are among the most important

16 Testing for indirect effects has been very limited in the treatment literature, and would require modeling them directly in a general equilibrium model. This goes beyond the focus and the interest of this paper. The presence of this negative externality on program effects on non-participants (the so-called Stable Unit Treatment Value Assumption, or SUTVA) is usually not testable. A recent study based on the Progresa experimental trial (Angelucci, De Giorgi, 2006) is able to isolate positive indirect effects on the non-participants, because of the spillover effects due to the large cash injection in the local treated areas. 17 See footnote 6.

16

aspirations of participating families and those conditions that are perceived as structural factors

preventing households to escape extreme poverty. In this light, they are also perceived as the most

difficult minimal conditions to meet.

On the other hand, the short term horizon of the current analysis might not be sufficient to

observe any impact along these dimensions. In principle, the employment and earnings trajectories

of those households who have participated to self-employment/public works/training programs

and/or those members who had adult literacy program might improve in the medium run. This

short term effects are potentially consistent with the logic of the program to satisfy some basic

needs in the short term, while at the same time building the assets to allow households to improve

their welfare in a sustained way in the medium-long run. However, the evidence on the

effectiveness of active labor market program in the North American and European studies is mixed,

with modest impact on increasing employment rates, though not much impact on earnings

(Heckman, Lalonde, Smith, 1999). If any, the literature shows that some of the estimated gains are

not sustained over time when longer follow-up data are available. The same evidence has also

emphasized how the empirical results from the evaluation of such programs mask substantial

heterogeneity: the lack of impact on the aggregate universe of participants might hide important

effects on specific subgroups depending on the initial conditions (among others age/life cycle,

education, local labor markets, labor market experience), or depending on the specific features of

the program. In the case of Chile Solidario, the fact that some of these labor market programs are

tailored to specific sub-populations rather than being a homogenous program is encouraging. For

instance, there are programs focusing as women at home who would be willing to activate

themselves to enter the labor market, (programa PRODEMU), and others who target beneficiaries

who are planning to initiate/strengthen their self-employment activity (programa

microemprendimiento FOSIS). One might expect that such a customized and tailored approach will

bring about benefits for at least some subgroups of participants in the future. For the moment

being, given the short time horizon of the current analysis, we will provide in section 6 only an

indirect inference of how the results may vary according to some key socio-economic characteristics

of the participating households.

5.2: Housing effects

Having their own house (‘casa propria’) and improving its basic infrastructure also feature

as a very important dimension among the aspirations of participating families (Asesoria 2005, U.

Chile 2004b,c, FOSIS 2004b).18 Owning a house reinforces the identity of the household as an

18 Textual analysis of the ‘life projects’ of those households exiting the two-years period of psycho-social support (ficha final Puente) also confirms that the modal combination of words in the aspirations of the

17

independent unit, represents a capital that can be bequeathed to their children, together with the

investment in human capital. Besides the ownership status, basic sanitary and housing

infrastructure are important correlates of household welfare (FOSIS 2004a): having basic

infrastructure has potential complementarities with health outcomes (access to safe water and

sanitation) as well as family dynamics (in terms of a space that allows for better roles and

interactions among different household members).

The results in table 3 show significant effects on the enrollment in housing programs in

urban areas. The estimated effect ranges from 7% in 2003 to double to 14% in 2004. Compared to

an average take-up of 24% of non-participants (stable over time), this amounts to an estimated

sizable increase ranging between 30 to 60%. Enrolment in such public programs requires that the

households have set some minimum amount of savings to be eligible. Possibly part the cash

received through public transfers (either though the bono or through the Subsidio Unico Familiar)

has allowed the participating households to save towards this objective.

Housing is one of the dimensions along which there might have been some rationing of the

supply side. The results with municipality fixed effects, which control for time-invariant differences

in the initial availability of housing, seem to rule out the rationing explanation. The results with

community effects do not differ significantly from the other specifications within areas

(rural/urban), (though it might still be possible that the rationing applies uniformly to all rural

areas).

Table 3 also shows significant effects of the program on the receipt of basic housing

equipment (of about 23 percentage points) as well as basic material to protect the house from

rain/cold (ranging from 10-15 percentage points). These results are also robust to controlling for

community effects. Overall, the results provide evidence that participating households are more

likely to activate themselves to connect to the social protection network to bridge the initial gaps

in their housing situation.

5.3: Impact on human capital outcomes

Table 4 reports all the results that relate to various dimensions of health and education.

The choice of the outcomes of interest follows the list of intermediate indicators that are set by the

program as minimum conditions to be achieved by participating households and that can be

measured in the CASEN survey. All variables are computed as averages of individual outcomes at

the household level (independently of whether the condition apply to specific subgroups of

households or not), having in mind the objective to obtain an average effect of the program on the

participating households relates to ‘having their own house’, as well ‘improving their own house’ (V. Silva’s presentation at MIDEPLAN, October 2005).

18

overall population of participating households. The only exception is given by outcomes that refer

to households with disabled members, for whom the baseline characteristics and the expected

behavioral response are expected to be substantially different.

Education effects: Overall, the results suggest significant and consistent increases in the

likelihood of having all children aged 4-5 year olds enrolled in a pre-school. The effects for pre-

school enrolment are in the range of 4-6 percentage points, consistently found in both urban and

rural areas, as well as across different methods. Availability of preschools or financial constraints

are not perceived to be an issue: cultural perceptions that the child is too young, or that he/she is

better off taken care at home account for 90% of the self-reported reasons for non-enrolment

(MIDEPLAN, analysis CASEN 2003). The gains are partly a result of the intense work with the

social worker, who during the session emphasizes of the importance of being enrolled in pre-school

for the cognitive and behavioral development of the children. This dimension is by its nature inter-

related to the willingness and ability of the mother to work, and therefore interrelated to outcomes

in the employment dimension. From the supply side, there are different pre-school programs that

have been adapted to reach the target population by providing free access as well as flexible hours

to meet the needs of working mothers, even with temporary jobs or households where the head of

the household is unemployed and the mother is looking for work.

School enrolment of children from 6 to 15 has improved between 7-9%, relative to non-

participation to the program. The results are significant (unconditional, RD), although not robust

across all matching specifications, with more robust evidence from the regression discontinuity

results. Intuitively, the matching regressions do control for age composition of the household, but

do not control for initial conditions and other characteristics of household members other than the

head of the household. Household in urban areas are also more likely to have taken-up

complementary programs of school materials, meals, and dental care directed to subsidize direct

costs of schooling for households with lower socio-economic conditions. There are no fees for public

schools in Chile, so most of costs of enrolment are indirect (opportunity cost of the child’s time).

There are no significant differences in terms of literacy of children aged 12-18.

As part of its comprehensive strategy, the program also targets illiterate adults or adults that

would like to complete their elementary middle school levels. On the benefit side, literacy or

improvements in the educational attainment can increase the adults’ self-esteem, and help process

information about services/jobs and be instrumental to supporting the children in their educational

learning. Existing estimates of the returns to completed education in Chile in the labor market

range from a 30-40% income gain from completing primary education to 70% gains to completing

secondary education (World Bank 2003). The costs of participation are not only measured in terms

of opportunity cost of their leisure time after work, but also in terms of psychological costs. In this

19

respect, the psycho-social support by the social worker is instrumental to discuss the potential

benefits of such programs, and to encourage the potential participants to feel motivated and

capable of attaining such an objective. The results show a statistically significant take-up of adult

literacy and education completion programs in rural areas of around 4% in urban areas and 5

percentage points in rural areas. This take-up translates into improved adult literacy in the range

of 5-8% in urban areas and 7-10% in rural areas (RD results). 19

Health effects: The impact of the program on health outcomes is more muted than the one

on educational outcomes. The only consistent result is that participating households are more likely

to be enrolled in the public health system (SAPS) (2-3% in urban areas, 3% in rural areas). The

impact on health visits for preventive care is found for health visits for children below six years of

age (of the order of 4-6 percentage points, only in rural areas) and for women aged 35 or older for

their pap smear (of the order of 6-7%, mostly in 2004 for rural areas and in 2003 in urban areas).

The results on elderly are not significant in urban areas and often negative in rural areas. We

believe that the negative effects are more of a reflection of the differences in the composition of the

elderly population in our sample and of the lack of sufficient covariates that are specific to this age

group20 rather than credible negative estimates of impact.

5.4. Evidence on perceptions and orientation towards the future

The 2004 questionnaire includes some basic perception questions administered to the head

of the household and/or her spouse. We will use some of these perception questions as intermediate

outcomes of the analysis, to measure, however crudely, some of the effects of the psycho-social

support. We realize that these differences might be capturing underlying differences in personality

traits and personal attitudes and preferences. Still, one might expect that the distribution of these

unobserved characteristics is uniformly distributed across households with similar socio-economic

characteristics and is unrelated to program participation under our identification assumptions.

Results are presented in table 5. There are no systematic differences between participating

and non-participating households in the subjective perception that they belong to the lowest socio-

economic ladder (subjective welfare) nor in their perception of their economic status relative to

their childhood. These results provide an indirect support towards our empirical strategy that

households are well matched not only along objective measures of welfare but also on some

19 Note that the regression discontinuity results are preferred estimates for the adult literacy indicators. The matching regressions control for education levels of the head of the household, and not for all initial differences in education attainments of all adult members. This explains why some of the negative results on adult literacy and enrolment are reversed in sign and significance when going from matching estimates to the RD results. 20 Namely we control for the share of male and female elderly in the households but fail to account for their initial differences in health status.

20

important subjective dimensions. The short time horizon of the survey and the fact that there are

no income effects of the program are consistent with this picture.

What comes out consistently is the fact that households in Chile Solidario are more likely

to be aware of social services in the community (10 percentage points in rural areas and 13-16

percentage points in urban areas, corresponding to an increase of the order of 20-30% relative to

the non-participants). This result is important, given that it was one of the main objectives of the

program was to ‘bridge’ such demand gap. Households in urban areas are also reporting to be more

likely to proactively look for help from local institutions (7 percentage points).

Finally, households seem to be more optimistic about their future socio-economic status (7-8

percentage points in rural areas and 10-11 percentage points in urban areas, corresponding to an

increase of about 15-20% relative to non-participation). This improved outlook, even if measures

with a basic perception question, is likely to be correlated towards their orientation towards the

future, and their willingness to invest in assets that improve their likelihood to eventually escape

extreme poverty over time.

6. Unpacking the evidence: complementarities and heterogeneity of impact

In this section, we first provide evidence of the strength of association of impact across

some key outcomes. The large array of final and intermediate outcomes reflects the

comprehensiveness of the program approach, but makes it harder to summarize them in a

consistent way. The strength of the correlation of impact can indicate of how complementary or

substitutes such outcomes are in improving the socio-economic conditions of participating

households. Second, we describe how these impact estimates correlate to some key socio-economic

conditions of the participating households, namely their index of unsatisfied basic needs as well as

the age of the head of household.

Table 6a provides a simple correlation table among the unit-level impact estimates for the

different employment programs, as well as labor income and expectations about the future. The

correlations confirm that enrolment in the local employment office is an important eligibility

vehicle for enrolling in self-employment as well as public employment programs. More importantly,

the correlations show that there is a strong connection between improved expectations about the

future for those households in urban areas who had higher labor income gains as well as those who

are enrolled in self-employment programs. It is also worth noting that employment program gains

are stronger for younger households (as measured by the age of the head)21, even though they have

21 The same results would obtain if the age of the spouse is chosen as an indicator of the life-cycle of the family. Given assortative mating, the correlation between the two is 0.82 when the spouse is present. Given

21

not materialized (yet) in labor income gain. The self-projection into better standards of living does

not seem to be operating through the labor/employment program nexus in rural areas.

Table 6b presents an analogue table that describes complementarities among different

dimensions of welfare gains in the program with respect to human capital outcomes. Younger

households are the ones who exhibit education and health gains (enrollment in pre-school as well as

health visits for children younger than 6) as well as those who are more likely to enroll to obtain

public housing. Education and health gains for the younger children are positively correlated,

especially in urban areas. Another interesting pattern is that the perception of a better economic

situation in the future is positively related to education and health gains both in rural and in urban

areas. The self-projection into better standards of living is correlated with enrolment for public

housing in rural areas, contrary to the income/employment pattern noted above for urban areas.

7. Conclusions

This paper provides the first estimates of the welfare effects of an innovative program

targeting households in extreme poverty in Chile. The evaluation exploits exogenous variation in

geographic assignment of household to the program to estimate the short term effect of the

intervention on a large array of household outcomes. The first overall theme coming out of the

results, is a significant and substantial effect on the take-up of a cash assistance and social services,

which was one of the main objectives of the program in its inception. Households in extreme

poverty were previously observed to be disconnected from the public network of social services, and

the program seemed to have bridged some of this gap. Second, we find that the program, in its two

first years of operations, improves educational and some health outcomes of the participating

households, though there are effects on labor supply or income. Finally, we describe suggestive

evidence of the key role that the psycho-social support had in enabling this change, by increasing

awareness of social services in the community as well as households’ orientation towards the future.

The comparison with other conditional transfers programs comes naturally to mind, though

it should be exercised with extreme caution. The scope of the program (reaching 5% of the

population), the institutional strength of local municipalities and the vast array of social services

available in Chile makes it hard to extrapolate the results to other countries in the Latin American

region. Nonetheless, the methodological approach that works jointly on the demand and supply

side of social services is an innovation with respect to traditional conditional cash transfers and has

already attracted attention from other countries in Central America (such as Guatemala,

the high share of single parent households among the participants (about 30%), using the age of the head allows to retain a larger number of observations.

22

Honduras, and Colombia). Both types of approaches show gains in human capital indicators with

increased health and education visits.22 In the case of Chile Solidario, the intervention covers other

complementary dimensions of welfare (housing, employment, income), and we could measure the

effect of the program on these outcomes as well as measure the complementarities among these

effects. Yet for both type of approaches, the jury is still out to understand whether participating

households will be able to be self-reliant and sustain their exit from poverty.

The current analysis leaves many important questions unanswered. I suggest two promising

areas for future work. The first set of issues to explore relates to dynamics and medium term

impacts. The third round of data planned to be in the field in November 2006 will be the first time

where a significant portion of beneficiary households will have left the phase of psycho-social

support. This will allow addressing the following questions: What are the medium-longer term

impacts of the program? How sustainable is the effect and for which types of households? What

happens to households when they leave the first two years of psychosocial support? Gertler et al

(2005) provide preliminary evidence that some of the substantial cash transfer received by Mexican

families in the context of Progresa (now Oportunidades) has been saved and used to finance in

micro-enterprise activities and increased investments in farm assets and agricultural activities.

Further analysis of impact of Chile Solidario beyond the short term might provide more insights

about whether the income and employment gains are going to be achieved through a different

strategy of intervention.

Second, one of the crucial innovations of the program is to bring the psychological

dimension at the center of a large scale poverty intervention. The paramount importance of the

psycho-social support, well documented in beneficiaries’ assessments and in the qualitative work,

has been only touched upon in the current analysis by looking at a few isolated perception

questions. There is scope for improving our understanding on such important dimensions by

enriching the quality of instruments for measurement. Moreover, it will be important to study how

interrelated are changes in the psychological dimension with changes in socio-economic conditions.

Are the positive impacts on future orientation going to be sustained over time, once households are

not supported by the social worker? Do these positive outlooks get dissipated if the improvements

in material conditions and economic well being fail to materialize? Providing answers to such

questions are important not only for Chile, but also for the design of social protection programs in

other countries.

22 In addition, the extensive literature that has originated from the Mexican program has shown gains in nutrition and other health outcomes (such as illnesses, anemia, height (Gertler and Boyce 2001, Gertler 2004), indirectly act as a partial safety net, by protecting beneficiary households from the risk of shocks that might induce them to take their children out of school (Finan et al, 2005). The compact nature of the CASEN questionnaire does not allow to measure gains along such dimensions.

23

References

Appadurai, Arjun (2004), “The Capacity to Aspire: Culture and the Terms of Recognition”, Chapter 3

in Culture and Public Action, Vijayendra Rao and Michael Walton eds., Stanford University Press,

Stanford.

Abadie, Alberto and Guido Imbens (2006), “Large Sample Properties of Matching Estimators for

Average Treatment Effects,” Econometrica, 74(1), pp. 235-67.

Angelucci, Manuela and Giacomo Di Giorgi (2006), “Indirect Effects of an Aid Program: the case of

Progresa and Consumption”, processed, University College of London, Department of Economics.

Asesorias para el Desarrollo (2005) “Necesidades y Aspiraciones Prioritarias de las Familias que

han finalizado la etapa de apoyo psicosocial del sistema de protección social Chile Solidario”,

Santiago, Chile.

Bourguignon, Francois, and Satya Chakravarty (2003), “The measurement of multidimensional

poverty”, Journal of Economic Inequality, 1, pp. 25-49.

Blundell, Richard, Monica Costa Dias, Costas Meghir and John Van Reenen (2004) “Evaluating

the Employment Impact of a Mandatory Job Search Program”, Journal of the European

Economic Association, 2(4): 569-606.

Clert, Carine and Quentin Wodon (2001) “The Targeting of Government Programs in Chile”,

Background Paper for “Poverty and Income Distribution in a High Growth Economy -- The

Case of Chile 1987-98”, The World Bank.

Chay, Kenneth, Patrick McEwan and Miquel Urquiola (2005), “The Central Role of Noise in

Evaluating Interventions that use Test Scores to Rank Schools”, American Economic Review,

95(4), pp. 1237-58.

Currie, Janet (2004), “The Take Up of Social Benefits”, NBER Working Papers 10488, National

Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

De Janvry, Alain and Elisabeth Sadoulet (2005), “Making Conditional Cash Transfer Programs

More Efficient: Designing for Maximum Effect of the Conditionality”, processed, University of

California at Berkeley, Department of Agricultural Economics.

Finan, Frederico Alain De Janvry, Elisabeth Sadoulet, and Renos Vakis (2005), “Can Conditional

Cash Transfers Serve as Safety Nets to Keep Children at School and Out of the Labor

Market?”, processed, University of California at Berkeley, Department of Agricultural

Economics. Forthcoming in Journal of Development Economics

Gertler, Paul, and Simone Boyce (2001), “An experiment in incentive-based welfare: The impact of

PROGRESA on health in Mexico.” Mimeo, University of California, Berkeley.

24

Gertler, Paul (2004), “Do Conditional Cash Transfers Improve Child Health? Evidence from

PROGRESA’s Control Randomized Experiment”, American Economic Review, Papers and

Proceedings, 94(2), pp. 336-341.

Gertler, Paul, Sebastian Martinez and Gloria Rubio (2005), “Investing Cash Transfers to Raise

Long Term Living Standards”, processed, The World Bank.

Heckman, James, Robert LaLonde and Jeffrey Smith (1999), “The Economics and Econometrics of

Active Labor Market Programs.” In Orley Ashenfelter and David Card, eds., Handbook of

Labor Economics, Volume 3A. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 1865-2097.

Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales (2004a), “Informe. Evaluación del Estado de

Avance del Sistema Chile Solidario”, Santiago, Chile.

Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales (2004b), “Efectos de la Intervención Psicosocial

en Mujeres que participan directamente en el Sistema Chile Solidario”, Santiago, Chile.

Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales (2004c), “Resultados Estudio Evaluativo

“Programa Puente” y Chile Solidario”, Santiago, Chile.

Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales (2005), “Trayectorias Laborales en Familias

del Programa Puente”, Programa De Estudios Desarrollo Y Sociedad (PREDES), Santiago,

Chile.

FOSIS (2004a), “Avance de las Obras”, Cuadernillo de Trabajo no. 1, Series Reflexiones Desde el

Puente, Santiago, Chile.

FOSIS (2004b), “Las Condiciones Mínimas para la Construcción del Puente”, Cuadernillo de

Trabajo no. 3, Series Reflexiones Desde el Puente, Santiago, Chile.

FOSIS (2004c), “Los Apoyos Familiares. Los otros Constructores del Puente”, Cuadernillo de

Trabajo no. 4, Series Reflexiones Desde el Puente, Santiago, Chile.

FOSIS (2005a), “El Plano de los Servicios para Emplazar el Puente: Las Redes Locales de

Intervención”, Cuadernillo de Trabajo no. 5, Series Reflexiones Desde el Puente, Santiago,

Chile.

FOSIS (2005b), Con su Esfuerzo y una Oportunidad, Historias de vida de familias que participan

en el programa Puente, Santiago, Chile.

MIDEPLAN (2002), “Estrategia de Intervención Integral a favor de Familias en Extrema

Pobreza”, División Social. Santiago, Chile.

MIDEPLAN (2004), “Pobreza, Distribución del Ingreso e Impacto Distributivo del Gasto Social”,

volumen 1, serie CASEN 2003, División Social. Santiago, Chile.

Hahn, Jinyong, Todd, Petra and Wilbert Van der Klauww (2001), “Identification of Treatment

Effects by Regression-Discontinuity Design”, Econometrica, pp. 201-209.

25

Lindert, Kathy, Emmanuel Skoufias, and Joseph Shapiro (2005), “Redistributing Income to the

Poor and the Rich: Public Transfers in Latin America and the Caribbean”, paper presented at

the Annual meetings of the Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association, Paris.

Ravallion, Martin (2005), “Evaluating Anti-Poverty Programs”, chapter prepared for the

Handbook of Agricultural Economics, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3625,

The World Bank.

Van der Klaauw (2002), “Estimating the Effect of Financial Aid Offers on College Enrollment: A

Regression Discontinuity Approach”, International Economic Review, 43(3), pp. 1249-87.

26

Fig. 1: program assignment to communes: programs received (in logs) vs. CAS threshold 2

46

8

400 450 500 550puntaje corte CAS

Fig. 2: support of the CAS distribution (panel sample), by region

300 400 500 600 700

r.m.

xii

xi

x

ix

viii

vii

vi

v

iv

iii

ii

i

Note: own calculations: sample of all households with information on their CAS score (panel 2003-2004).

27

Fig. 3a: support of the CAS distribution, participants and non-participants (panel sample)

0.0

05.0

1.0

15.0

2kd

ensi

ty c

as

300 400 500 600 700x

Puntajes CAS y Puntajes de corte

Note: own calculations from the panel sample 2003-04. Sample of all households with information on their CAS score. Vertical lines represents the ranges of the municipal (dashed) and regional (solid) cutoff scores. Fig. 3b: CAS distribution for participants and non-participants, relative to the CAS cut-off

0.0

05.01.0

15.0

2kd

ens

ity c

as

300 400 500 600 700x

reg 1

0.005.0

1.015

.02

kden

sity

cas

300 400 500 600 700x

reg 2

0.00

5.01.0

15.0

2kd

ensi

ty c

as

300 400 500 600 700x

reg 3

0.0

1.02.

03.0

4kd

ensi

ty c

as

300 400 500 600 700x

reg 4

0.005.

01.0

15.0

2kd

ens

ity c

as

300 400 500 600 700x

reg 5

0.005.

01.0

15.02

kden

sity

cas

300 400 500 600 700x

reg 6

0.00

5.01.0

15.02

kden

sity

cas

300 400 500 600 700x

reg 7

0.00

5.01.0

15.02

kden

sity

cas

300 400 500 600 700x

reg 8

0.005.

01.0

15.02.0

25kd

ens

ity c

as

300 400 500 600 700x

reg 9

0.005.

01.0

15.02.0

25kd

ensi

ty c

as

300 400 500 600 700x

reg 10

0.005.

01.015.

02.02

5kd

ensi

ty c

as

300 400 500 600 700x

reg 11

0.005.

01.015.

02.02

5kd

ensi

ty c

as

300 400 500 600 700x

reg 12

0.005.

01.0

15.0

2kd

ens

ity c

as

300 400 500 600 700x

reg 13

by participation statusCAS scores and regional thresholds

28

Fig. 4: Participation on the distance of CAS score relative to the CAS cutoffs

0

.2.4

.6.8

1C

S s

tatu

s

-50 0 50 100CAS score relative to regional cutoff

bandwidth = .05

program assignment relative to cutoff

Note: Non-parametric regression of the indicator status of participation with respect to the difference between the CAS score of the household relative to the threshold (maximum between the municipality and the regional cutoffs). Panel dataset 2003-2004, sample of households with CAS information.

29

Table 1a: Descriptive Statistics, by participation status CASEN 2003

Non participants Participants

characteristics head household

characteristics head household

characteristics Beneficiaries

mean st.dev. mean st.dev. mean st.dev. Rural area 0.130 0.337 0.307 0.461

Hh’ld income p.c.* 128,927 304,879 33,330 30,789 Hh’ld ‘ingreso autonomo’ p.c. (excl. public transfers)* 125,925 304,494 27,945 30,519 Hh’ld ‘ingreso autonomo’ p.c. [adjusted] 171,010 439,221 38,339 51,926 Durables: refrigerator 0.864 0.343 0.470 0.499 Durables: calefont 0.626 0.484 0.088 0.283 Household size 3.744 1.749 4.716 2.083 Presence disabled member 0.135 0.397 0.251 0.531 male 0.739 0.439 0.665 0.472 0.134 0.341

age 49.52 15.27 47.55 15.39 42.20 14.78

age<30 0.098 0.297 0.125 0.331 0.243 0.429

Education level:

no education 0.033 0.180 0.124 0.330 0.106 0.308

Incomplete primary 0.203 0.403 0.515 0.500 0.511 0.500

complete primary 0.139 0.346 0.176 0.381 0.170 0.376

Incomplete secondary 0.181 0.385 0.119 0.324

Complete secondary 0.234 0.423 0.054 0.226

Higher education 0.205 0.403 0.008 0.088

Marital status:

married 0.579 0.494 0.445 0.497 0.411 0.492

union 0.128 0.334 0.247 0.431 0.272 0.445

single 0.101 0.301 0.108 0.311 0.147 0.355

Employment status:

employed in 2000 0.714 0.452 0.619 0.486 0.295 0.456

housework in 2000 0.086 0.281 0.172 0.378 0.581 0.493

unemployed in 2000 0.038 0.192 0.070 0.256 0.037 0.190

currently employed 0.718 0.450 0.620 0.486 0.365 0.481

currently unemployed 0.041 0.199 0.079 0.269 0.054 0.226

currently inactive 0.241 0.428 0.302 0.459 0.580 0.494

Relationship to the head:

head 0.400 0.490

spouse 0.483 0.500

child 0.080 0.272

other 0.037 0.189

No.obs 65,628 5,608 5,360 Note: Own calculation from the CASEN 2003 survey. Variables are weighted using sampling weights. (*) Income figures are not adjusted, i.e. without the application of the CEPAL correction. Hh’ld ‘ingreso autonomo’ p.c. (adjusted) is used by MIDEPLAN to calculate poverty indexes.

Table 1b: Descriptive Statistics, by participation status. Panel sample 2003-2004 2003 2004 Beneficiaries

households non-particip. households

Beneficiaries households

non-particip. households

Variables: Mean st.dev. Mean st.dev

Diff. Std.

Means Mean st.dev. mean st.dev

Demographics household size 4.756 1.995 4.340 1.900 0.276 4.748 2.123 4.305 1.920 Share hh’ld members 0-5 0.123 0.146 0.091 0.136 0.232 0.112 0.139 0.084 0.131 Share hh’ld members 6-17 0.267 0.198 0.233 0.206 0.161 0.271 0.201 0.232 0.207 Share hh’ld members 18-64 0.543 0.205 0.577 0.238 -0.144 0.544 0.209 0.575 0.244 Share hh’ld members 65+ 0.067 0.168 0.098 0.230 -0.133 0.073 0.177 0.109 0.244 presence disabled member 0.252 0.536 0.203 0.493 0.106 0.267 0.567 0.199 0.475 both parents present 0.694 0.461 0.713 0.453 -0.038 0.662 0.473 0.698 0.459 head is male 0.663 0.473 0.710 0.454 -0.098 0.633 0.482 0.696 0.460 head is married 0.448 0.497 0.559 0.497 -0.214 0.405 0.491 0.544 0.498 ethnic minority 0.105 0.306 0.076 0.266 0.101 0.133 0.340 0.082 0.275 age head<30 0.134 0.340 0.086 0.280 0.134 0.108 0.310 0.070 0.255 age head (30,40) 0.279 0.449 0.243 0.429 0.056 0.266 0.442 0.224 0.417 age head (40,50) 0.228 0.419 0.257 0.437 -0.060 0.238 0.426 0.268 0.443 age spouse <30 0.168 0.374 0.115 0.319 0.144 0.133 0.339 0.097 0.296 age spouse (30,40) 0.221 0.415 0.217 0.412 0.009 0.218 0.413 0.201 0.401 age spouse (40,50) 0.151 0.358 0.184 0.387 -0.079 0.153 0.360 0.190 0.392 rural area 0.211 0.408 0.152 0.359 0.177 0.230 0.421 0.149 0.356 Family background head - no education 0.125 0.331 0.056 0.231 0.253 0.127 0.333 0.053 0.223 head — incomplete primary 0.522 0.500 0.334 0.472 0.376 0.528 0.499 0.344 0.475 Spouse - no education 0.049 0.216 0.032 0.176 0.097 0.048 0.213 0.029 0.167 Spouse —incomplete primary 0.334 0.472 0.215 0.411 0.245 0.348 0.476 0.206 0.405 durables: refrigerator 0.493 0.500 0.778 0.416 -0.584 0.475 0.499 0.788 0.409 durables: calefont 0.080 0.271 0.374 0.484 -0.714 0.066 0.248 0.364 0.481 CAS score 466.32 27.61 540.31 48.33 -1.396

=1 if CAS score is missing 0.128 0.335 0.450 0.497 -0.689

Eligibility (CAS<CAS cutoff) 0.953 0.211 0.114 0.352 1.620

Housing No. rooms 3.09 1.36 3.54 1.14 -0.345 3.07 1.21 3.49 1.10 Water: public network 0.810 0.392 0.910 0.286 -0.302 0.838 0.368 0.921 0.269 Sewage: public network 0.500 0.500 0.826 0.379 -0.665 0.490 0.500 0.832 0.374 Walls: concrete, breaks 0.164 0.370 0.441 0.497 -0.626 0.199 0.399 0.455 0.498 Ownership: own house 0.439 0.496 0.658 0.474 -0.386 0.461 0.499 0.662 0.473 Ownership: rented house 0.081 0.273 0.096 0.295 -0.109 0.077 0.266 0.092 0.289 Roof conditions: interior ceiling 0.544 0.498 0.837 0.369 -0.617 0.572 0.495 0.818 0.386

OUTCOMES: Household Income (unadjusted*) Hh’ld income p.c. 31,175 23,596 51,843 41,282 33,155 25,060 55,913 52,358 Hh’ld labor income p.c. 21,337 21,411 39,458 40,078 23,144 24,132 41,945 48,632 Hh’ld non labor income p.c. 1,814 8,692 3,201 11,763 1,252 5,030 3,484 18,717 Hh’ld public transfers p.c. 8,023 10,559 9,185 17,445 8,759 11,752 10,483 22,987 Hh’ld ‘ingreso autonomo’ p.c. (excl. public transfers)

25,747 23,433 49,803 41,967

27,111 25,071 53,635 52,981

Intermediate indicators if disabled: enrolled in Nat. Registry 0.273 0.446 0.296 0.457 0.299 0.458 0.240 0.427 if disabled: children in education sys. 0.797 0.404 0.722 0.449 0.717 0.451 0.748 0.435 Health (unconditional): inscribed in SAPS (public system) 0.983 0.129 0.914 0.280 0.987 0.113 0.933 0.250 pregnant women w/regular check-up 0.044 0.204 0.036 0.185 0.045 0.208 0.035 0.184 all children<6 w/regular check-ups 0.211 0.408 0.163 0.370 0.168 0.374 0.152 0.359 all women>35 w/regular pap smear 0.385 0.487 0.384 0.486 0.424 0.494 0.411 0.492 all elderly w/regular check-up 0.077 0.267 0.100 0.299 0.082 0.275 0.117 0.321

31

Education (unconditional): all children 4-5 attending pre-school 0.169 0.374 0.110 0.313 0.153 0.360 0.109 0.311 All children<15 enrolled in school 0.674 0.469 0.582 0.493 0.652 0.476 0.575 0.494 children in school receiving assistance 0.559 0.497 0.481 0.500 0.530 0.499 0.471 0.499 all children 12-18 can read/write 0.166 0.372 0.158 0.365 0.165 0.371 0.176 0.381 all adults can read/write 0.704 0.457 0.855 0.352 0.678 0.467 0.853 0.354 adults enrolled in adult literacy pgm/nivelacion competencia 0.114 0.318 0.064 0.244

0.067 0.250 0.041 0.198

Employment: at least one member working 0.835 0.371 0.874 0.332 0.831 0.374 0.886 0.318 Children 8-15 not in school&working 0.0008 0.031 0.0001 0.013 0.0001 0.000 0.0008 0.029 at least one member with stable job+ 0.751 0.433 0.867 0.339 at least one member enrolled in micro-imprendimiento pgm+

0.306 0.461 0.027 0.161

at least one member enrolled in programa de empleo+

0.096 0.295 0.040 0.195

at least one member enrolled in the local employment office+

0.459 0.498 0.231 0.422

at least one member enrolled in a training program+

0.182 0.386 0.166 0.372

Income: hh'ld receiving SUF 0.606 0.489 0.187 0.390 0.639 0.480 0.189 0.391 hh'ld receiving asignacion familiar 0.116 0.320 0.291 0.454 0.117 0.322 0.285 0.452 hh'ld receving PASIS 0.115 0.319 0.061 0.238 0.124 0.330 0.071 0.257 Housing: hh’ld receving SAP 0.131 0.337 0.199 0.400 0.110 0.313 0.176 0.381 received material to protect house from rain/cold+

0.248 0.432 0.045 0.207

received equipamiento for kitchen/bedroom+

0.233 0.423 0.013 0.113

hh'ld “postulando a vivienda” 0.329 0.470 0.241 0.428 0.373 0.484 0.230 0.421 No. Obs. 3,495 9,509 3,495 9,509

Note: Own calculation from the longitudinal sample CASEN 2003-Encuesta Panel 2004. Variables are weighted using sampling weights. The column “diff. std. means” reports the difference in means of the variables between the beneficiary and non-beneficiary households, after they have been normalized to have mean zero and unit variance. (*) Income figures are not adjusted, i.e. without the application of the CEPAL correction. (+) indicates that the variable available only in 2004. The summary statistics for the intermediate indicators are calculated on the entire sample, irrespectively of whether the indicator applies to the population of interest (ex. Having children less than six, having at least one disabled member, etc). Table 1c. Descriptive Statistics on perception questions+, panel sample 2004 Head of household Spouse head

Beneficiaries households

non-participants households

Beneficiaries households

non-participants households

Mean st.dev. Mean st.dev. Mean st.dev. Mean st.dev. “Situacion economica en su infancia mejor” 0.398 0.49 0.349 0.477 0.359 0.48 0.336 0.472

Subjective welfare scale (5 ladder):

- “pertenece al grupo socioeconomico bajo” 0.704 0.456 0.479 0.499 0.655 0.475 0.400 0.489

- “pertenece al grupo socioeconomico medio-bajo” 0.230 0.421 0.343 0.474 0.273 0.445 0.397 0.489

“Hizo algun trabajo por la comunidad - 2 ultimos anos” 0.251 0.434 0.197 0.398 0.238 0.426 0.206 0.404

“Nadie lo ayudaría a solucionar su problema, si tuviera un problema importante” (social support) 0.165 0.371 0.162 0.369 0.153 0.360 0.156 0.362

“situacion economica en el futuro mejor que ahora” (economic situation in the future will be better) 0.599 0.49 0.527 0.499 0.628 0.483 0.562 0.496

Ha ido buscar por iniciatica propria ayuda a una instituicion” (looked for help out of own initiative) 0.428 0.495 0.216 0.412 0.448 0.497 0.212 0.408

Aware of public programs in the community 0.543 0.498 0.481 0.5 0.529 0.499 0.493 0.5

Satisfaction with life index: good or very good 0.718 0.45 0.783 0.412 0.736 0.441 0.814 0.389

Note: Own calculation from the longitudinal sample Encuesta Panel 2004. Variables are weighted using sampling weights. The subjective welfare questions (first 3 lines) were administered only to the head and his/her spouse, only when present.

32

Table 2: program assignment to communes log ‘cupos’ log ‘cupos’ Log commune size (census 2000) 0.685 0.685 [0.042]** [0.042]** CAS threshold commune 0.006 0.007 [0.002]** [0.002]** CAS threshold region -0.013 [0.003]** Region fixed effects NO YES No. Obs. 315 315 R-squared 0.58 0.69

Note: Unit of observation is the commune. Robust standard errors in brackets. Source: the Information on number of participating households by commune (‘cupos’) provided by MIDEPLAN/Puente (between 2002 and 2005). Population of the commune based on the 2000 Census (MIDEPLAN). * significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%, *** significant at 1%.

33

Table 3: Impact of the program on intermediate socio-economic indicators: Matching on the CAS score.

Matching on CAS Panel A: Urban 2003 2004

Unconditional Conditional

(hh’ld)

Conditional (hh’ld+

Commune) Unconditional

Conditional (hh’ld)

Conditional (hh’ld+

Commune) - dimension Identification if disabled: enrolled in Nat. Registry (ident6)

-0.042 (0.067)

-0.063 (0.067)

-0.003 (0.060)

-0.047 (0.062)

0.028 (0.061)

0.060 (0.053)

- dimension Employment:

at least one member working 0.035

(0.033) -0.017 (0.027)

-0.030 (0.030)

-0.017 (0.032)

-0.045 (0.029)

-0.053* (0.028)

at least one member with stable job+ (trab1)

-0.030 (0.040)

-0.041 (0.038)

-0.046 (0.037)

Share of members employed -0.003 (0.028)

-0.011 (0.028)

-0.033 (0.027)

0.005 (0.029)

0.002 (0.027)

-0.004 (0.027)

Share of members active 0.017

(0.026) 0.005

(0.026) -0.029 (0.025)

0.005 (0.027)

0.006 (0.026)

-0.005 (0.026)

children<15 not in school and working (trab2)

0.001 (0.002)

0.001 (0.002)

0.001 (0.002)

— — —

at least one member enrolled in the local empl office (trab3) +

0.282*** (0.040)

0.271*** (0.040)

0.186*** (0.038)

at least one member enrolled in programas de micro-imprend.+

0.322*** (0.028)

0.321*** (0.028)

0.294*** (0.027)

at least one member enrolled in a training program+

0.135*** (0.027)

0.133*** (0.027)

0.113*** (0.027)

at least one member enrolled in programas de empleo+

0.077*** (0.022)

0.064*** (0.022)

0.057** (0.022)

- dimension Housing received material to protect house from rain/cold+

0.176*** (0.030)

0.145*** (0.029)

0.127*** (0.029)

received equipamiento for kitchen/bedroom+

0.239*** (0.026)

0.234*** (0.026)

0.211*** (0.025)

hh’ld receiving ‘subsidio agua potable’ (SAP)

-0.057** (0.031)

-0.070** (0.031)

-0.080** (0.029)

-0.085** (0.031)

-0.067** (0.031)

-0.071*** (.029)

hh'ld “postulando a vivienda” 0.102*** (0.037)

0.077** (0.036)

0.063** (0.035)

0.168*** (0.035)

0.136*** (0.034)

0.110*** (0.033)

- dimension income hh'ld receiving ‘subsidio unico familiar’ (SUF)

0.178*** (0.039)

0.100*** (0.033)

0.125*** (0.032)

0.154*** (0.038)

0.081** (0.033)

0.113*** (0.032)

hh'ld receiving ‘asignacion familiar’

-0.078** (0.027)

-0.086*** (0.027)

-0.098*** (0.026)

-0.004 (0.025)

-0.019 (0.025)

-0.036 (0.025)

hh'ld receving public pensions (PASIS)

-0.082*** (0.026)

-0.009 (0.020)

0.024 (0.020)

-0.079*** (0.027)

-0.009 (0.022)

0.024 (0.022)

Hh’ld income p.c. -3,457*** (1,826)

-407 (1,617)

-4,187 (1,683)

-1,695*** (1,975)

-169 (1,794)

-2,454 (1,861)

Hh’ld labor income p.c. -1,783 (551)

-2,226 (1,567)

-5,753*** (1,607)

1,732 (1,904)

-2,245 (1,666)

-4,839*** (1,720)

Hh’ld non labor income p.c. -438 (670)

-623 (664)

-997 (667)

-226 (474)

-74 (478)

-386 (487)

Hh’ld public transfers p.c. -1,236 (966)

2,442*** (613)

2,564*** (642)

-2,019* (1,109)

2,151*** (711)

2,771*** (754)

Note: Matching estimator: matching on the CAS score, with replacement. 3 nearest neighbors. Standard errors in parentheses based on the estimated variance of the sample average treatment effect (as in Abadie and Imbens 2006). * significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%, *** significant at 1%. Household characteristics include: household size and composition (share of males and females 0-, 6-17, 18-64, older than 65 is the excluded category), whether both head and spouse are in the household, sex, age, marital status and education dummies of the head, age spouse, whether the household is an ethnic minority, ownership of durables (refrigerator, calefont).

34

(cont. table 3) Matching on CAS Panel B: Rural 2003 2004

Unconditional Conditional

(hh’ld)

Conditional (hh’ld+

Commune) Unconditional

Conditional (hh’ld)

Conditional (hh’ld+

Commune) - dimension Identification if disabled: enrolled in Nat. Registry (ident6)

0.064 (0.052)

0.019 (0.051)

0.019 (0.051)

0.087* (0.052)

.0110** (0.051)

0.110** (0.043)

- dimension Employment:

at least one member working 0.011

(0.029) -0.017 (0.027)

-0.017 (0.027)

0.002 (0.028)

-0.029 (0.027)

-0.028 (0.026)

at least one member with stable job+ (trab1)

-0.012 (0.036)

0.006 (0.034)

0.004 (0.033)

Share of members employed 0.028

(0.023) 0.028

(0.022) 0.028 0.022

0.012 (0.024)

0.010 (0.023)

0.005 (0.022)

Share of members active 0.049** (0.022)

0.047** (0.021)

0.047 (0.021)

0.010 (0.023)

0.007 (0.022)

-0.001 (0.021)

children<15 not in school and working (trab2)

0.001 (0.002)

0.001 (0.002)

0.001 (0.002)

0.001 (0.002)

0.002 (0.002)

0.001 (0.002)

at least one member enrolled in local empl. office (trab3)+

0.147*** (0.025)

0.134*** (0.025)

0.110*** (0.025)

enrolled in micro-imprendimiento pgm+

0.136*** (0.029)

0.139*** (0.029)

0.123*** (0.028)

enrolled in a training program+

0.023 (0.021)

0.032 (0.021)

0.018 (0.020)

enrolled in programa de empleo+

0.044*** (0.014)

0.040**** (0.014)

0.031** (0.014)

- dimension Housing received material to protect house from rain/cold+

0.118*** (0.028)

0.114*** (0.028)

0.098*** (0.027)

received equipamiento for kitchen/bedroom+

0.240*** (0.022)

0.236*** (0.022)

0.219*** (0.021)

hh’ld receiving ‘subsidio agua potable’ (SAP)

0.012 (0.017)

-0.003 (0.017)

0.001 (0.016)

0.019 (0.015)

0.003 (0.015)

0.012 (0.016)

hh'ld “postulando a vivienda”

0.045 (0.028)

0.006 (0.030)

0.013 (0.029)

-0.014 (0.030)

0.002 (0.027)

-0.021 (0.029)

- dimension income hh'ld receiving ‘subsidio unico familiar’ (SUF)

0.111*** (0.034)

0.108*** (0.033

0.060** (0.028)

0.063** (0.027)

0.068** (0.028)

0.074*** (0.027)

hh'ld receiving ‘asignacion familiar’

0.005 (0.017)

0.008 (0.017)

-0.012 (0.017)

-0.023 (0.017)

-0.019 (0.018)

-0.028* (0.017)

hh'ld receving public pensions (PASIS)

-0.057** (0.027)

-0.090** (0.027)

0.026 (0.022)

0.009 (0.022)

0.035 (0.021)

0.025 (0.022)

Hh’ld income p.c. 1,648 (1,455)

691 (1,452)

2,403* (1,311)

1,604 (1,340)

1,352 (1,365)

806 (1,373)

Hh’ld labor income p.c. 1810 (1,374)

2,428 (1294)

694 (1,304)

102 (1,243)

45 (1,337)

-564 (1,205)

Hh’ld non labor income p.c. 331 (367)

-377 (489)

73 (371)

192 (492)

35 (370)

293 (495)

Hh’ld public transfers p.c. -494.882 (767)

-1360* (818)

1,636*** (507)

1,311** (548)

1,272** (527)

1,077* (602)

Tab

le 4

: Im

pact

of th

e pr

ogra

m o

n he

alth

and

edu

cati

on ind

icat

ors:

Pan

el A

: U

rban

20

03

2004

Mat

chin

g on

CA

S R

eg. D

isco

ntin

uity

M

atch

ing

on C

AS

Reg

. D

isco

ntin

uity

U

ncon

dit

w/h

h’ld

co

ntro

ls

w/h

h’ld

co

ntro

ls+

co

mm

uneF

E

CA

S [-20

,+20

] C

AS

[-10

,+10

] U

ncon

dit

w/h

h’ld

co

ntro

ls

w/h

h’ld

co

ntro

ls+

co

mm

uneF

E

CA

S [-20

,+20

] C

AS

[-10

,+10

]

(1

) (2

) (3

) (4

) (5

) (1

) (2

) (3

) (4

) (5

) -

dim

ensi

on E

duca

tion

al

l ch

ildre

n 4-

5 at

tend

ing

pre-

scho

ol

(edu

c1)

0.06

2**

(0.0

27)

0.02

7 (0

.023

) 0.

026

(0.0

23)

0.04

8**

(0.0

20)

0.06

6**

(0

.027

) 0.

071*

* (0

.027

) 0.

042*

(0

.023

) 0.

035

(0.0

23)

0.06

2***

(0

.019

) 0.

054*

(0

.028

) ch

ildre

n<15

enr

olle

d in

sch

ool

(edu

c3)

0.09

6**

(0.0

38)

0.02

3 (0

.025

) 0.

019

(0.0

25)

0.06

5**

(0.0

27)

0.03

6

(0.0

38)

0.08

9**

(0.0

38)

0.00

0 (0

.024

) -0

.005

(0

.024

) 0.

076*

**

(0.0

27)

0.06

9*

(0.0

38)

child

ren

in s

choo

l re

ceiv

ing

assi

stan

ce (

educ

4)

0.09

0**

(0.0

38)

0.04

0 (0

.033

) 0.

063*

(0

.033

) 0.

038

(0

.028

) 0.

058

(0

.040

) 0.

033

(0.0

39)

-0.0

25

(0.0

33)

-0.0

06

(0.0

33)

0.03

1

(0.0

28)

0.03

4

(0.0

40)

all ch

ildre

n 12

-18

can

read

/wri

te

(edu

c5)

0.00

5 (0

.027

) -0

.009

(0

.027

) -0

.005

(0

.028

) 0.

010

(0

.020

) -0

.013

(0

.029

) -0

.010

(0

.028

) -0

.025

(0

.027

) -0

.014

0.

027

(0.0

07)

(0.0

20)

-0.0

03

(0.0

29)

all ad

ults

can

rea

d/w

rite

(ed

uc9)

-0

.036

(0

.034

) -0

.058

**

(0.0

26)

-0.1

07**

* (0

.026

) 0.

036

(0

.024

) 0.

085*

* (0

.034

) -0

.001

(0

.035

) -0

.059

**

(0.0

27)

-0.1

06**

* (0

.027

) 0.

043*

(0

.024

) 0.

063*

(0

.034

) ad

ults

enr

olle

d in

adu

lt lit

erac

y pr

ogra

m/n

ivel

acio

n co

mpe

tenc

ia

0.02

5 (0

.024

) -0

.001

(0

.024

) -0

.002

(0

.024

) 0.

022

(0

.018

) -0

.010

(0

.026

) 0.

039*

* (0

.019

) 0.

025

(0.0

19)

0.02

6 (0

.018

) 0.

042*

**

(0.0

13)

0.02

6

(0.0

18)

- di

men

sion

Hea

lth

insc

ribe

d in

SA

PS

(sal

ud1)

0.

051*

**

(0.0

17)

0.03

6**

(0.0

17)

0.03

8**

(0.0

16)

0.02

3**

(0.0

11)

0.00

5

(0.0

09)

0.01

9 (0

.012

) -0

.001

0.

012

0.01

0 (0

.012

) 0.

016

(0

.017

) -0

.001

(0

.012

) pr

egna

nt w

omen

w/r

egul

ar c

heck

-up

(sal

ud2)

0.

022

(0.0

15)

0.01

9 (0

.015

) 0.

013

(0.0

15)

0.00

4

(0.0

11)

0.02

0

(0.0

12)

-0.0

12

(0.0

17)

-0.0

35**

(0

.017

) -0

.044

**

(0.0

17)

0.00

4

(0.0

16)

0.03

6**

(0

.017

) al

l ch

ildre

n<6

w/r

egul

ar c

heck

-ups

(s

alud

4)

0.05

9**

(0.0

29)

-0.0

22

(0.0

27)

-0.0

25

(0.0

26)

0.01

2

(0.0

21)

0.02

7

(0.0

21)

0.04

0 (0

.029

) -0

.015

(0

.027

) -0

.029

(0

.026

) 0.

004

(0

.030

) 0.

017

(0

.029

) al

l w

omen

>35

w/r

egul

ar p

ap s

mea

r (s

alud

5)

0.06

0 (0

.037

) 0.

040

(0.0

31)

0.02

5 (0

.031

) 0.

070*

* (0

.027

) 0.

045

(0

.028

) 0.

024

(0.0

38)

-0.0

29

(0.0

32)

-0.0

37

0.03

3 0.

035

(0

.038

) 0.

034

(0

.039

) al

l el

derl

y w

/reg

ular

che

ck-u

p (s

alud

7)

-0.1

10**

* (0

.026

) -0

.060

**

(0.0

21)

-0.0

51**

0.

021

-0.0

74**

* (0

.018

) -0

.053

**

(0.0

20)

-0.0

38

(0.0

24)

-0.0

03

(0.0

21)

0.00

0 (0

.021

) -0

.062

**

(0.0

26)

-0.0

44*

(0.0

26)

Sam

ple

size

55

63

1480

70

4 55

63

1480

70

4

36

(t

able

4 c

ont.)

Pan

el B

: R

ural

20

03

2004

Mat

chin

g on

CA

S R

eg. D

isco

ntin

uity

M

atch

ing

on C

AS

Reg

. D

isco

ntin

uity

U

ncon

dit

w/h

h’ld

co

ntro

ls

w/h

h’ld

co

ntro

ls+

co

mm

uneF

E

CA

S [-20

,+20

] C

AS

[-10

,+10

] U

ncon

dit

w/h

h’ld

co

ntro

ls

w/h

h’ld

co

ntro

ls+

co

mm

uneF

E

CA

S [-20

,+20

] C

AS

[-10

,+10

]

(1

) (2

) (3

) (4

) (5

) (1

) (2

) (3

) (4

) (5

) -

dim

ensi

on E

duca

tion

al

l ch

ildre

n 4-

5 at

tend

ing

pre-

scho

ol

(edu

c1)

0.04

7**

(0.0

21)

0.05

1**

(0.0

19)

0.04

6**

(0.0

18)

0.03

7*

(0.0

21)

0.08

6***

(0

.031

) -0

.004

(0

.022

) -0

.017

(0

.019

) -0

.013

(0

.019

) 0.

018

(0

.021

) 0.

068*

*

(0.0

30)

child

ren<

15 e

nrol

led

in s

choo

l (e

duc3

) 0.

046

0.03

4 -0

.036

(0

.023

) -0

.040

* (0

.024

) 0.

069*

* (0

.032

) 0.

056

(0

.043

) 0.

054

0.03

4 -0

.044

* (0

.022

) -0

.052

**

(0.0

23)

0.07

3**

(0.0

32)

0.10

9***

(0

.043

) ch

ildre

n in

sch

ool re

ceiv

ing

assi

stan

ce (

educ

4)

0.04

6 0.

034

-0.0

11

(0.0

26)

-0.0

06

(0.0

26)

0.04

3

(0.0

32)

0.05

5

(0.0

43)

0.06

6*

(0.0

34)

0.00

8 (0

.029

) -0

.005

(0

.028

) 0.

059*

(0

.032

) 0.

075*

(0

.043

) al

l ch

ildre

n 12

-18

can

read

/wri

te

(edu

c5)

0.02

2 (0

.023

) 0.

010

(0.0

22)

0.00

6 (0

.022

) 0.

024

(0

.023

) 0.

003

(0

.031

) 0.

022

(0.0

25)

-0.0

06

(0.0

25)

-0.0

03

(0.0

24)

0.02

5

(0.0

24)

-0.0

10

(0.0

31)

all ad

ults

can

rea

d/w

rite

(ed

uc9)

0.

022

(0.0

32)

-0.0

33

(0.0

27)

-0.0

46

(0.0

27)

0.06

9**

(0.0

32)

0.05

6

(0.0

43)

0.00

5 (0

.032

) -0

.055

**

(0.0

27)

-0.0

72

(0.0

26)

0.07

3**

(0.0

32)

0.10

9***

(0

.043

) ad

ults

enr

olle

d in

adu

lt lit

erac

y pr

ogra

m/n

ivel

acio

n co

mpe

tenc

ia

0.05

3***

(0

.017

) 0.

054*

**

(0.0

17)

0.05

0***

(0

.017

) 0.

017

(0

.017

) 0.

029

(0

.023

) 0.

019

0.01

5 0.

015

(0.0

15)

0.01

5 (0

.015

) 0.

020

(0

.013

) 0.

048*

* (0

.021

)

-

dim

ensi

on H

ealth

insc

ribe

d in

SA

PS

(sal

ud1)

0.

033*

**

(0.0

12)

0.03

0**

(0.0

12)

0.03

0**

(0.0

12)

0.03

2***

(0

.009

) 0.

027*

* (0

.011

) 0.

010

(0.0

12)

-0.0

05

(0.0

11)

-0.0

02

(0.0

10)

0.00

4

(0.0

09)

0.01

8

(0.0

13)

preg

nant

wom

en w

/reg

ular

che

ck-u

p (s

alud

2)

0.02

2*

(0.0

12)

0.01

6 (0

.012

) 0.

015

(0.0

11)

0.01

5

(0.0

12)

0.02

6

(0.0

19)

-0.0

05

(0.0

12)

-0.0

09

(0.0

11)

-0.0

09

(0.0

11)

-0.0

10

(0.0

10)

(0.0

10)

(0.0

17)

all ch

ildre

n<6

w/r

egul

ar c

heck

-ups

(s

alud

4)

0.03

5 (0

.027

) 0.

000

(0.0

24)

0.00

9 (0

.023

) 0.

060*

*

(0.0

27)

0.06

2*

(0.0

37)

0.02

6 (0

.024

) 0.

015

(0.0

23)

0.02

2 (0

.022

) 0.

043*

(0

.023

) 0.

037

(0

.031

) al

l w

omen

>35

w/r

egul

ar p

ap s

mea

r (s

alud

5)

0.04

1 (0

.032

) 0.

009

(0.0

28)

0.01

5 (0

.027

) 0.

030

(0

.031

) 0.

033

(0

.042

) 0.

067*

* (0

.034

) 0.

016

(0.0

28)

0.02

6 (0

.028

) 0.

063*

* (0

.032

) 0.

075*

(0

.043

) al

l el

derl

y w

/reg

ular

che

ck-u

p (s

alud

7)

-0.0

29

(0.0

22)

-0.0

08

(0.0

20)

0.00

1 (0

.020

) -0

.016

(0

.019

) -0

.022

(0

.025

) -0

.053

**

(0.0

22)

-0.0

18

(0.0

19)

-0.0

10

(0.0

19)

-0.0

25

(0.0

18)

-0.0

31

(0.0

23)

Sam

ple

size

32

70

1272

68

3 32

70

1272

68

3

Not

e: P

anel

Sam

ple

2003

-200

4. C

olum

ns (

1-3)

: M

atch

ing

on t

he C

AS

scor

e, w

ith

repl

acem

ent,

3 n

eare

st n

eigh

bors

. Se

e fo

otno

te o

n ta

ble

2 fo

r m

ore

deta

ils.

Col

umns

(4-

5):

Rep

orte

d co

effici

ents

(H

uber

-Whi

te s

tand

ard

erro

rs a

re i

n pa

rent

hese

s) f

rom

a r

egre

ssio

n of

the

out

com

e va

riab

le o

n an

ind

icat

or o

f pa

rtic

ipat

ion

and

a cu

bic

poly

nom

ial in

the

CA

S sc

ore.

Table 5: Impact of the program on perceptions (2004): matching on the CAS score

Unconditional + hh’ld controls + hh’ld controls, commune FE

(1) (2) (3)

Panel A: Urban

“Situacion economica en su infancia mejor” -0.019 (0.043)

-0.008 (0.043)

-0.067 (0.042)

Subjective welfare scale (5 ladder): - “pertenece al grupo socioeconomico bajo”

-0.008 (0.040)

0.016 (0.039)

0.068* (0.038)

“Hizo algun trabajo por la comunidad - 2 ultimos anos”

0.056*** (0.029)

0.047 (0.030)

0.060** (0.030)

“Nadie lo ayudaría a solucionar su problema, si tuviera un problema importante”

-0.064** (0.031)

-0.034 (0.031)

-0.029 (0.030)

“situacion economica en el futuro mejor que ahora”

0.176*** 0.040

0.114*** (0.040)

0.097** (0.039)

Ha ido buscar por iniciatica propria ayuda a una instituicion”

0.099** (0.037)

0.070* (0.037)

0.041 (0.036)

Aware of social services in the community (DF

0.189*** (0.038)

0.161*** (0.038)

0.129*** (0.037)

Satisfaction with life index: good or very good

0.061* 0.036

0.015 (0.036)

0.017 (0.035)

Panel B: Rural

“Situacion economica en su infancia mejor” 0.000 0.034

-0.017 (0.034)

-0.030 (0.033)

Subjective welfare scale (5 ladder): - “pertenece al grupo socioeconomico bajo”

-0.012 0.035

0.000 (0.034)

0.010 (0.033)

“Hizo algun trabajo por la comunidad - 2 ultimos anos”

-0.013 0.030

-0.005 (0.029)

-0.007 (0.028)

“Nadie lo ayudaría a solucionar su problema, si tuviera un problema importante”

-0.027 (0.027)

-0.019 (0.027)

-0.011 (0.026)

“situacion economica en el futuro mejor que ahora”

0.136*** (0.035)

0.077** (0.035)

0.068** (0.034)

Ha ido buscar por iniciatica propria ayuda a una instituicion”

0.050 (0.032)

0.028 (0.031)

0.024 (0.031)

Aware of social services in the community 0.110*** (0.034)

0.100*** (0.034)

0.100*** (0.032)

Satisfaction with life index: good or very good

0.043 (0.029)

0.056* (0.029)

0.050* (0.028)

Note: Panel Sample 2003-2004. Columns (1-3): Matching on the CAS score, with replacement, 3 nearest neighbors. See footnote on table 2 for more details on the set of covariates.

Table 6: Heterogeneity of impact 2004.

(6a) correlations among unit-level impact estimates for participants: employment and labor income

Panel A: Urban 2004

Labor

Inc p.c. Enroll

Microimp Enroll empleo

Enroll OMIL

Ec. Sit. future

CAS

Age head

Labor income p.c. 1 enrolled in micro-imprend pgm 0.031 1 enrolled in programa empleo 0.013 0.110 1 enrolled in local empl. office OMIL -0.022 0.219 0.300 1 Better econ. sit. future 0.149 0.149 0.017 0.105 1 CAS 0.030 -0.016 -0.044 -0.002 -0.026 1 Age head -0.004 -0.143 -0.055 -0.194 -0.162 0.060 1 Panel B: Rural 2004

Labor

Inc p.c. Enroll

Microimp Enroll empleo

Enroll OMIL

Ec. Sit. future

CAS

Age head

Labor income p.c. 1 Better econ. situation future -0.019 1 enrolled in micro-imprend pgm -0.022 0.161 1 enrolled in programa empleo -0.030 0.168 0.309 1 Better econ. sit. future 0.016 0.081 0.039 0.107 1 CAS 0.045 -0.015 0.043 -0.015 -0.069 1 Age head -0.045 -0.006 -0.086 -0.147 -0.078 -0.191 1

(b) correlations among unit-level impact estimates for participants: education and health outcomes

Panel A: Urban 2004

Income

p.c. Labor

Inc p.c. Housing (post.) Educ1 Educ3 Salud4

Ec. Sit. future

CAS

Age head

Income p.c. 1 Labor income p.c. 0.843 1 Housing (postulacion) -0.039 0.033 1 Educ1 (Pre-school <6) -0.062 0.006 0.060 1 Educ3 (school enrol<15) -0.214 -0.035 0.116 -0.002 1 Salud4 (health checks<6) -0.069 -0.009 0.025 0.156 0.039 1 Better econ. sit. future 0.066 0.161 0.031 0.071 0.078 0.066 1 CAS 0.113 0.025 -0.109 -0.013 -0.092 -0.073 -0.028 1 Distance CAS-cutoff 0.042 0.001 -0.044 -0.015 -0.043 -0.057 -0.042 0.6705 0.063 Age head 0.157 -0.039 -0.128 -0.174 -0.245 -0.100 -0.181 0.058 1 Panel B: Rural 2004

Income

p.c. Labor

Inc p.c. Housing (post.) Educ1 Educ3 Salud4

Ec. Sit. future

CAS

Age head

Income p.c. 1 Labor income p.c. 0.782 1 Housing (postulacion) -0.012 -0.001 1 Educ1 (Pre-school <6) -0.105 0.002 -0.027 1 Educ3 (school enrol<15) -0.179 -0.012 0.114 -0.014 1 Salud4 (health checks<6) -0.129 -0.060 0.076 0.059 0.024 1 Better econ. sit. future -0.043 0.024 0.105 0.022 0.103 0.101 1 CAS 0.118 0.057 -0.018 -0.052 -0.103 -0.012 -0.061 1 Distance CAS-cutoff 0.058 -0.026 -0.045 -0.057 -0.105 -0.022 -0.055 0.725 -0.112 Age head 0.143 -0.075 -0.045 -0.098 -0.177 -0.114 -0.097 -0.196 1

Household estimates from Table 3, column 1, unconditional

39

Appendix

A1. Structure of the longitudinal panel 2003-2004-2005/6.

Admin. Data Household survey data

(base Puente) CASEN ‘03 PANEL’ 04 PANEL ‘05/6

225,000 ≈73,000 hh’lds 13,000 hh’lds participants A2. Construction of the panel sample 2003-2004.

The objective of the panel survey was to follow up over time only a sample of the CS beneficiaries and their matched comparison group. The selected longitudinal sample was composed of about 3,400 participating households (comprising of 60% of the beneficiaries interviewed in the CASEN 2003, and of 186 new beneficiaries of the 2004 cohort identified by cross-checking the administrative list of beneficiaries and with the names/addresses of the original CASEN).

The matched comparison group was constructed by estimating a propensity score of participation into the program separately for four broad geographic areas.23

The list of covariates included household size and age composition, whether the household belongs to an ethnic minority or speaks a minority language, head characteristics (age dummies, education dummies, marital status dummies, labor force history in 2000), housing characteristics, asset indicators, household non-labor income per capita, a rural indicator and dummies for the regions, and interactions between housing indicators and rural.

The matching was done among households who reported having filled in a ficha CAS. The prediction of the propensity score and the balancing of the covariates performed better than in the case where the comparison group was drawn from all the households sampled in the CASEN).

The matching was done choosing the 3 nearest neighbors for each beneficiary within each geographic area. Matching was done with replacement, based on the log of the odds ratios24 and imposing a common support in the propensity score among both beneficiaries and non-participants. Comparison households were forced to be chosen within the same geographic area and zone (rural/urban) for practical convenience. The final sample of original non-participants selected by MIDEPLAN for the panel includes 9,500 households.

23 The four geographic areas selected by Mideplan are: regions I-IV, regions V-VII and XIII, regions VIII-X, regions XI-XII. 24 Heckman and Todd (1995) show that in the case of sampling situations where program participants are oversampled (choice-based sampled data), matching can still be applied when matching is done on the odds ratio rather than on the propensity score. Matching on p/(1-p), the odds ratios, which are a monotonic transformation of the propensity score p, overcomes the problem of over-sampling.

2002

2003

2004

2005

40

A3: The list of minimum conditions Dimension Identification: 1. Que todos los miembros de la familia estén inscritos en el Registro Civil. 2. Que todos los miembros de la familia tengan cédula de identidad. 3.* Que la familia tenga su ficha CAS vigente en la Municipalidad de su domicilio (a la fecha de egreso la ficha debe encontrarse vigente). 4. Que todos los hombres de la familia mayores de 18 años tengan su situación militar al día (si han estado llamados el servicio militar deberá estar haciéndose, hecho o postergado). 5. Que todos los miembros adultos de la familia tengan sus papeles de antecedentes regularizados (al menos en proceso de regularización). 6.* Que los miembros de la familia que presentan alguna discapacidad, la tengan debidamente certificada por la Comisión de Medicina Preventiva e Invalidez (COMPIN) y estén inscritos en el Registro Nacional de la Discapacidad, en el caso que la discapacidad lo amerite. Dimension Health: 1.* Que la familia esté inscrita en el Servicio de Atención Primaria de Salud (disponen de la credencial o documento que certifica su inscripción). 2.* Que las embarazadas tengan sus controles de salud al día (según normas del Ministerio de Salud) (a la fecha del egreso deberá estar realizado el último control que corresponda). 3. Que los niños y niñas de 6 años o menos tengan sus vacunas al día (según normas del Ministerio de Salud) (a la fecha del egreso deberá estar la última vacuna que corresponda al día). 4.* Que los niños y niñas de 6 años o menos tengan sus controles de salud al día (según normas del Ministerio de Salud) (a la fecha del egreso deberá estar el último control que corresponda al día). 5.* Que las mujeres de 35 años y más tengan el examen de Papanicolau al día. 6. Que las mujeres que usen algún método anticonceptivo estén bajo control médico (a la fecha del egreso deberá estar el último control que corresponda realizado). 7.* Que los adultos mayores de la familia estén bajo control médico en el consultorio (a la fecha del egreso deberá estar el último control que corresponda realizado). 8. Que los miembros de la familia que sufren alguna enfermedad crónica, se encuentren bajo control médico en el centro de salud que corresponda (a la fecha del egreso deberá estar el último control que corresponda realizado). 9.* Que el o los miembros de la familia con discapacidad, susceptibles de ser rehabilitados, estén participando en algún programa de rehabilitación (al menos se conocen las alternativas y en proceso de incorporarse). 10. Que los miembros de la familia estén informados en materia de salud y autocuidado (información de acuerdo a los contenidos y criterios que determine cada unidad de intervención familiar en conjunto con la red local de intervención) Dimension Education: 1.* Que los niños y niñas en edad preescolar asistan a algún programa de educación de párvulos (en caso de no haber vacantes, al menos inscrito y postulando). 2. Que en presencia de madre trabajadora y en ausencia de otro adulto que pueda hacerse cargo de su cuidado, el o los niños menores de 6 años se encuentren incorporados a algún sistema de cuidado infantil (en caso de no haber vacantes, al menos inscrito y postulando). 3.* Que los niños hasta 15 años de edad asistan a algún establecimiento educacional (en el caso de los niños y niñas desertoras, en proceso de reinsertarse en el sistema escolar). 4.* Que los niños que asisten a educación preescolar, básica o media sean beneficiarios de los programas de asistencia escolar que correspondan (de los beneficios existentes en la comuna, de acuerdo a los parámetros que fije la unidad de intervención familia en conjunto con la red local de intervención). 5.* Que los niños mayores de 12 años sepan leer y escribir (al menos aprendiendo lectoescritura). 6. Que el o los niños con discapacidad que estén en condiciones de estudiar se encuentren incorporados al sistema educacional, regular o especial (en caso de no haber vacantes, al menos inscrito y postulando. En caso de no disponer de establecimientos, al menos aprendiendo lecto-escritura y operaciones básicas, de acuerdo a su edad). 7. Que exista un adulto responsable de la educación del niño y que esté en contacto regular con la escuela (acreditado como apoderado en la escuela y ha asistido a la última reunión de apoderados que corresponda a la fecha de egreso). 8. Que los adultos tengan una actitud positiva y responsable hacia la educación y la escuela, al menos reconociendo la utilidad de la participación del niño en procesos educativos formales. 9.* Que los adultos sepan leer y escribir (al menos aprendiendo lecto-escritura y operaciones básicas, aquellos que tengan disposición a hacerlo) Dimension Family Dynamics: 1. Que existan en la familia prácticas cotidianas de conversación sobre temas como hábitos, horarios y espacios para la recreación. 2. Que la familia cuente con mecanismos adecuados para enfrentar conflictos. 3. Que existan normas claras de convivencia al interior de la familia. 4. Que exista una distribución equitativa de las tareas del hogar (entre todos los miembros de la familia, independientemente del sexo de sus miembros y de acuerdo a la edad de cada uno de ellos). 5.* Que la familia conozca los recursos comunitarios y los programas de desarrollo disponibles en la red local (clubes deportivos, centros del adulto mayor, grupos de iniciativa, organizaciones de la comunidad, entre los principales). 6. Que en caso que exista violencia intrafamiliar, las personas involucradas directamente en esta situación estén incorporadas a algún programa de apoyo (al menos conoce las alternativas y se encuentra en proceso de integrarse). 7. Que la familia que tiene interno un niño en algún sistema de protección, lo visite regularmente. 8. Que la familia que tiene algún joven privado de libertad, lo apoye y colabore en el programa de rehabilitación. Dimension Housing:

41

1. Que la familia tenga su situación habitacional clara en relación con la tenencia del sitio y la vivienda que habitan. 2.* Si la familia quiere postular a vivienda, que se encuentre postulando. 3. Que cuenten con agua no contaminada. 4. Que cuenten con un sistema de energía adecuado. 5. Que cuenten con un sistema de eliminación de excretas adecuado. 6. Que la casa no se llueva, no se inunde y esté bien sellada. 7. Que la vivienda cuente, al menos con dos piezas habitables. 8. Que cada miembro de la familia tenga su cama con equipamiento básico (se entiende por equipamiento básico, sábanas, frazadas, almohada) 9. Que cuenten con equipamiento básico para la alimentación de los miembros de la familia (se entiende por equipamiento básico batería de cocina, vajilla y cubiertos para todos los miembros de la familia) 10. Que dispongan de un sistema adecuado de eliminación de basura. 11. Que el entorno de la vivienda esté libre de contaminación. 12.* Que la familia acceda al Subsidio al Pago del Consumo del Agua Potable, si corresponde. Dimension Employment: 1.* Que al menos un miembro adulto de la familia trabaje de forma regular y tenga una remuneración estable. 2.* Que ningún niño menor de 15 años abandone los estudios por trabajar. 3.* Que las personas que se encuentren desocupadas estén inscritas en la Oficina Municipal de Información Laboral (OMIL).

Dimension Income: 1.* Que los miembros de la familia que tengan derecho s SUF (Subsidio Único Familiar), lo obtengan (al menos se encuentren postulando). 2.* Que los miembros de la familia que tengan derecho a Asignación Familiar, la obtengan. 3.* Que los miembros de la familia que tengan derecho a PASIS (Pensión Asistencial), la obtengan (al menos se encuentran postulando). 4. Que la familia cuente con ingresos económicos superiores a la línea de la indigencia. 5. Que la familia cuente con un presupuesto organizado en función de sus recursos y necesidades prioritarias.

Note: * indicates that the minimum condition can be (at least partially) measured in the CASEN survey either at baseline and/or at followup in 2004.